Martin HenryMEMBERS OF various PNP youth groups, undoubtedly backed by their elders, have been yapping at the heels of Audley Shaw over his stewardship of his SESP funds. Shaw should have expected this. At the best of times, politics is war and Jamaican politics is a particularly bloody-minded variety.
Shaw is the chairman of the powerful Public Accounts Committee of Parliament which has sought to root out corruption in contracts and public administration often to the acute discomfort of the Administration. He is the man who broke in Parliament the fat salaries scandal which has so embarrassed the Government.
Shaw is a star player, as deputy leader and spokesperson, in the Opposition JLP, now on a popularity upswing in the polls after years in the pits. And, he has managed, in the quagmire of Jamaican politics, so far, to maintain the image of Mr. Clean much like a Burchell Whiteman on the PNP side.
At this point in time I have no idea what Audley Shaw may not be guilty of in the spending of his SESP funds. Buying material from his own hardware store for projects, if that is the case, may be in poor taste but is hardly outside the law. Buying at inflated prices, as he has been accused of doing, is hard to demonstrate in a market economy of variable price tags.
Mr. Shaw is not above the law. Nor are the other 59 Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. We are prone to forget that the origins and purpose of Parliament was to shackle the king by the law so that the king could not be above the law. Parliament dethroned the principle of "the king is the law" and enthroned the counter principle that "the law is king" which is the foundation of our democratic freedoms. This foundation principle of liberty and democracy is protected by checks and balances and separation of powers within the constitutional structures of parliamentary democracy.
Not to let Audley Shaw off if he has a case to answer about the disbursement of his SESP funds, but I propose that a deeper issue worthy of the most serious consideration by thoughtful citizens is the constitutionality of the SESP fund itself. The Government and Opposition agree on few things. But there is universal bipartisan consensus in the Parliament that the SESP is both necessary and desirable to allow Members of Parliament to "do something" in their constituencies. But is it? The only quarrel among the 60 representatives is who gets what to do what when. I submit that the SESP is both extra-constitutional and an open door to corruption of which buying from oneself at inflated prices is the least.
The SESP strengthens the Godfather role of the MP from which Danny Melville resigned in disgust with full explanation tendered.
The fund undermines the role of the civil service as the independent, neutral, non-partisan executor of government policy and legislation.
The SESP confers upon MPs private discretionary powers over the expenditure of public revenue and therefore undermines the collective responsibility of Parliament in this regard. The fund confers undue competitive advantage on incumbents over challengers, because incumbents can deploy public revenue to buy political support.
The Jamaican Constitution assigns to parliamentarians no powers of private discretionary expenditure, no philanthropic function, no public administrative duties, and certainly no powers to establish peace treaties and to employ area leaders to carry out the police functions of the state.
The constitutional function of Parliament is plain and simple: "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Jamaica." [Chap.5, Part 2, Section 48(i)]. That is the business of Parliament, never mind the progressive morphing of this role into MPs becoming elected dons.
Furthermore, "any member of either house may introduce any Bill or propose any motion for debate in or may present any petition to that House, and the same shall be debated and disposed of according to the Standing Orders of that House", except that "a Money Bill shall not be introduced in the Senate" [Section 55(i)].
Herein lies both the power of the parliamentarian as representative and the restraint upon him under the law as king. But neither the representative nor many of the represented is satisfied with these simple, clear, and limited functions.
The role of Provider, despite its onerous burdens, is too seductive not to pursue.
The SESP law is a commitment to pork barrel politics. The SESP law is inimical to the peace, order and good governance of Jamaica, never mind the concurrence of Parliament itself. And there is really no legal basis on which to argue that a Member of Parliament may direct the spending of public revenue at his discretion but should not direct expenditure to his own store.
Martin Henry is a communications consultant.
