Dear Editor,
With reference to talks on the 2015 budget between the government and the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), I read in the press Minister of Finance, Winston Jordan’s report on the meeting. The Minister stated that the meeting was not as fruitful as it could have been and that the PPP came with a list of accusations, among other challenges.
The approach of the government to governing has to be more solution-oriented, and designed in such a way that maximum impact can be obtained from development activities and engagements. I am not surprised that the meeting was not as fruitful as the government had expected.
Firstly, the government and the PPP are not necessarily on friendly terms. The PPP has actually filed a petition in the courts to contest the results of the May 11 elections. In addition, the PPP has repeatedly expressed its views of the government, saying, for example, that it is a de facto government, etc. The PPP/C therefore needs opportunities to express its views to the government directly, so far that has been happening through a third party, in most cases the media. The budget meeting was an opportunity for that kind of direct interaction.
Secondly, the PPP/C and the government both have an interest and an underlying interest in these talks; in this case, it seems as though the PPP’s underlying interest prevailed.
Thirdly, the Minister might not have been the best person to chair such a meeting at this point of time; the issues between the two parties are too raw. The Speaker of the National Assembly, for example, is a kind of facilitator and a mediator too, because the parties in Parliament need that kind of structure to allow for results-oriented conversations.
The government should have experienced facilitators to conduct these meetings with the PPP. The role of the facilitators will be to allow both parties to clarify issues while still maintaining the focus of the meeting so that the ultimate goal can be achieved. With the Minister chairing the meeting and having to defend the government at the same time could create an environment that is not conducive for a productive conversation.
The objective must not be merely to organise an event or activity but rather to achieve the greatest impact from it.
Universities are now actually conducting programmes on the science and art of working together across sectors and parties. I have attended a programme at a top university on the science and art of partnering and was amazed to see persons with PhD’s, Masters degrees, senior professionals in top international, regional, multinational and other organizations returning to the classroom to learn how to engage partners strategically. For example, major oil companies, the United Nations system, civil society as well as governments in developed and developing countries, are resorting to this, which points to a recognition of this issue of engagement as a problem in achieving development results, thus learning institutions are crafting and designing programmes to solve this problem.
Therefore the government has to professionalize its engagement with the PPP/C, particularly at this stage; it is called strategic engagement. It is not sufficient after the first engagement to say that the PPP/C was not cooperative.
Hence the Ministry of Finance in engaging the PPP/C on further budget talks, needs to change its strategy and solicit the involvement of facilitators at this stage until the relationship of the two parties improves.
Yours faithfully,
Audreyanna Thomas
