Good governance at work

Every high-risk area of operation needs a safety net. Without one, a premature end is highly possible. Governments are no different. Good governments surround themselves with safeguards, some of which are created by government in its own wisdom.

The latest of these precautionary measures has been the introduction of fiscal rules to govern the budgetary receipts and expenditures of the economy to ensure that performance targets are met. Indeed, without these rules, which were recently approved in Parliament, a finance minister has inadequate protection from members of parliament and others who exert pressure for more funds. He needs these rules for reinforcement.

The legislation to create these rules were initiated by the IMF to protect their investment in Jamaica where it was an even greater necessity than most countries because of the administrative laxity which has been practised by Jamaica in spending more than it receives, creating a gap to be closed by borrowings. Hence, the total loans contracted by the Jamaican Government over the past 30 years propelled the economy to the third most indebted in the world: 140 per cent of the country's total production (GDP).

A wise finance minister will welcome such a safeguard to counter attacks on the Budget he has created to finance the country. The IMF, it can be said, came to recognise the need for such a shield, and I am sure that the finance minister welcomes its protection as a guide to good governance. It will be a tower of strength.

It is not a new feature for Government to bind itself to proper procedure, although sometimes the rules are stated in such a manner as to create loopholes, even in the Constitution. Hence, in independent Jamaica, Government created statutory commissions that were responsible for the security forces, public and judicial services of the country, inclusive of the appointment and dismissal of personnel.

The Constitution expected that political preferences would not be allowed to manipulate these services by naming political persons to the board of the commissions which operated them. But it became possible to circumvent that safeguard by providing for the prime minister to name board members to the governor general. In such instances, the objection of the leader of the Opposition, who has a right to be consulted, is meaningless, because the governor general accepts the decision of the prime minister. That has now been overcome by amendment to require that both prime minister and opposition leader must agree on the selections.

This has been applied by legislation to the Electoral Commission, the media, the contractor general, the Integrity Commission and other statutory commissions dealing with critical national issues that must be free of political bias. It has been so successful that it has been informally applied to the Police Services Commission by unofficial agreement of P.J. Patterson and myself.

It is a pity that the Office of the Utilities Regulation (OUR) was not included under this regime. It would lift political pressure immediately from the work of the OUR. Only within the past few days this pressure appeared when the views of the OUR were challenged on the requirements it set out to be followed in the agreement of regulations for the operation of Energy World International (EWI) in its bid to build a 381kWh generator plant for Jamaica. Political pressure was used to try to change several features of this agreement that were safeguards for the Jamaican public. This particular instance was not successful because the Government was forced by people pressure to back off. It has highlighted the strength of dedicated public opinion to fight back against the political move that could open the door to corruption, maladministration and injustice.

Several citizen groups have now become active in carrying the objectives of civil society. The two earliest ones, both of which have had successful protests: Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) and the Jamaica Environment Trust (JET) have opened doors of enlightenment to vigilant public pressure against unpopular action by the political administration. Although not always successful, the voice of the civil society has made Government more cautious and perhaps even more understanding of the broader parameters it faces in governance.

Some on the most powerful of these groups representing civil society are: the Jamaica Civil Society Coalition, the Integrity Action Committee, and Citizens Action for Principle and Integrity, among many others. They have shown that their collective action cannot be dismissed.

Their role has stimulated some specialised watchdog agencies of government: the Independent Commission of Investigation, and the Consumer Affairs Commission, both of which, though initiated by government of both political parties, are working independent of any attachment. Indeed, the CAC needs to publicise more fully its work in obtaining refunds from the utilities and for defective equipment and overcharging.

I am especially proud of the contractor general who rejected political pressure to change his comments on the irregularities in the bid submitted by EWI for the building of the new power plant. This caused the Inter-American Development Bank to refuse an application for financing. More than any other step taken, that rejection halted a process that could otherwise have saddled the country with EWI, a company of many shortcomings, which could have caused innumerable breakdowns, horror and frustration.

These actions are not to be considered delays. They are insurance against wrong decisions from which Government can only benefit. Thankfully, the Government seems to be listening. From all this, Jamaica can only be stronger.

Edward Seaga is a former prime minister. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.