There has never been a May 1 like this one. It is true that the celebration of the workers’ day in recent times has not been what it once was, but it still retained a certain symbolic significance. The split in the workers’ movement, the reduction in the numbers of those involved in organised labour, the decline of the unions and the absence for the most part of a cadre of trade union leaders of exceptional talent have all played their part in diminishing the significance of the occasion. Today there will be no marches and no speeches on workers’ conditions – at least not in their usual form. Yet at no time in the past few years has the workers’ situation been so dire. The pandemic has caused a global recession, in addition to which the local lockdown has produced its own crisis which the distribution of a limited number of government food hampers has failed to alleviate.
In the last quarter of 2017 the Bureau of Statistics estimated that 68% of the workforce was employed in the private sector, and that 67.1% were employees. Between 48.6 and 52.7%, of them, the Bureau said, held informal jobs. While those figures would not have remained stable in the intervening period to the beginning of 2020, they are unlikely to be totally inapplicable in a general sense. What can be said is that since such a high percentage hold informal jobs, they will be unlikely to have a financial cushion for a situation like this, in addition to which, neither will most low-paid wage-earners, who probably do not even have a bank account.
The quarantine is supposed to be lifted on May 3, although we reported last week that there was some expectation it would be extended. Even if it is lifted, however, it is unlikely that economic activity will return to what it was before the coronavirus made its unwelcome descent, because many people will be nervous about returning to shopping areas, particularly in Georgetown. Unless we are all saved by a vaccine, many citizens will remain anxious about being in any area where crowds congregate. If so, this will not be good news for many sectors, and especially the hospitality industry and the retail trade.
But if workers have nothing to celebrate on their special day for economic reasons, the country as a whole has crossed a political boundary on this day too, because it marks another milestone in our shameful electoral saga. Under the Constitution of this country Parliament must meet for its new session no later than four months after the end of the preceding one. The last Parliament was dissolved by President David Granger on December 30, 2019, and so the next one should start the new session no later than April 30, 2020, i.e. yesterday.
So as a supposed parliamentary democracy, we have now entered novel territory since we are effectively in a vacuum as far as the main institution which sustains that democracy is concerned. As it is, we have gone almost a year without a sitting of the National Assembly, which last met on May 23, 2019. Whatever else he can claim, President Granger cannot pretend that he presides over a democratic polity; he has overseen the bypassing or manipulating of all the institutions and safeguards which ensure the rule of law, of which Parliament is probably the most important. He cannot inspire confidence in workers or anyone else as to his good faith on the political front.
But there is a further problem in relation to the absence of Parliament which was explained by Mr Anand Goolsarran in a recent Accountability column in this newspaper. It is to be remembered that government expenditures have to be approved by Parliament, and in the first instance that is done through the instrument of the budget, when government Estimates are presented to the House. Mr Goolsarran writes that in 2017, 2018 and 2019 the Estimates for the next year were tabled in the National Assembly and approved before the end of the fiscal year. But where expenditure for this year is concerned, the President dissolved Parliament on December 30, 2019, without first getting a budget passed.
In the absence of a budget, where was government getting the authority to spend money from? Up until this point, Mr Goolsarran said, under Article 220(1) of the Constitution the Minister of Finance can authorise withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund to meet the cost of essential services. This would be pending the passing of an Appropriation Act. There is a limit to the amount which can be withdrawn, which will not be repeated here, but the columnist was of the view that it was this provision on which the Minister would have been relying.
However, we now move into a different dimension, since there is no provision which would allow the Minister to utilise funds from May onwards, because no Parliament exists to approve the government’s Estimates. Mr Goolsarran clarified that under Article 220(4) of the Constitution the Minister could again use the Contingencies Fund for expenditure which was urgent and for which no provision existed. This is expanded on by the FMA Act, he said, which stated that it must also be unforeseen and unavoidable, and must be of a nature that it cannot be postponed without damaging the public interest. It would have to be limited, however, to two per cent of the approved Estimates of the preceding year.
He went on to write that the approved Estimates for 2019 totalled $300.7 billion, so the most that could be withdrawn from the Contingencies Fund would be $6.014 billion. While it was not known how much had been used so far, even if it was nothing, the sum of $6.014 billion would not be enough to meet the cost of essential services until the next Parliament met. “How the difference is to be funded is anyone’s guess!” said Mr Goolsarran. Indeed.
Amid all the other illegalities which are going on, this is another question the coalition needs to give an account of, more particularly since the end of the recount is not immediately in sight. The workers need to know the answer; voters need to know; citizens in general need to know.
