Phyllis Thomas, Enterprise EditorTHE SOCIAL and Economic Support Programme (SESP) is a dangerous weapon in the hands of politicians and may well be one of the most ill-conceived programmes to have been presented to the people of this country, purely because of the level of control that politicians have over it.
Former Prime Minister, the late Michael Manley, no doubt meant good when he conceptualised the SESP in 1990. It was formed
during the period of structural adjustment which created the need for a safety net to cushion the fall of many who went tumbling below the poverty line. In a statement to Parliament on October 24, 1990, Mr. Manley said that its focus was on direct employment, a credit programme, training and social programmes "for a significant section of the population".
Members of Parliament were required to submit documents for the projects they wanted to be undertaken in their constituencies. But history has now proven that the SESP is flawed. There has been a departure from the original principle which placed a premium on direct employment. It has instead become a diluted and unsavoury programme which is easily manipulated, which is as starved of funding as it is starved of creative ideas for employment. It has become an instrument for the perpetuation and preservation of a culture of handouts, and dependency on Members of Parliament for subsistence. It has spawned a new breed of mendicants. It has become more about the MPs. They own the SESP. So when one thinks SESP, the first thing that jumps to mind is MPs, not developmental projects to benefit the most vulnerable in the society.
INVESTIGATION
The Sunday Gleaner conducted a recent investigation of the SESP, looking mainly at how the MPs spent their SESP allocation and making a comparison with what obtained during the earlier stages of the SESP in the 1990s. The investigation took the form of interviews of MPs, their constituents, the implementing agencies and the review of previous articles written about the programme. It is on the basis of that investigation that we have made the conclusions about what the SESP has become.
I was shown some files bearing copies of requests for assistance made to the agencies. I did not see among those papers, any copy of supporting documents, which is a requirement for disbursing funds. Those who did not produce files simply said that they spent X amount of money on Y project areas. It was a matter of taking their word for it. In the case of Prime Minister P. J. Patterson, Senator Noel K. Monteith sent documents originating from the agencies on how much was spent on Mr. Patterson's behalf, the areas on which the sums were spent and the number of persons
benefiting. They said that supporting
documents accompanied the requests.
Though many denied it, some admitted to politics playing a role in decisions made regarding spending of SESP funds or that it could be a feature of these decisions.
Senator Monteith said, "It is possible that some projects could be politically-contrived but even so, by the very nature of most projects, a wide cross-section of the community would still benefit."
Richard Azan, MP for North Western Clarendon said, " ... I am not telling you that I, 100 per cent, don't deal with politics. There is a time that I deal with it. There is a time that I don't touch it at all."
What the people in the constituencies have said, along with responses to the series on the SESP carried in The Sunday and Daily Gleaner, seem to give support to the
notion of the integrity of the SESP being
compromised. Many residents said they saw no evidence of SESP being used to develop their communities.
LACK OF TRANSPARENCY
Interestingly, these persons including parish councillors, complained bitterly about the lack of transparency in disbursing the funds and the secrecy which cloaks transactions. One parish councillor in a telephone conversation with us, accused the MP of lying through his teeth about how he spent the money.
Persons who have called or written to us raised a number of concerns. One of those writing in said, " ... This article poses questions for me which go beyond the behaviour of a single MP of a constituency. It raises questions about this long-standing and rather corrupting method of distributing public funds through individual MPs as if it were their own personal largesse; it dehumanises those citizens who must go cap in hand to 'Mas' so and so' or 'the big man'.
"... The system in its current form has starved parish councils of any real creativity and interest in actually developing the towns, villages and parishes they are elected and employed to serve. Parish councils across the island seem mute in the face of having to kowtow to a single
individual who seems to exploit public office."
Some callers suggested we extend our
investigations into other constituencies
including those of West Central St. Andrew for which Andrew Holness is MP; South St. Andrew for which Dr. Omar Davies is MP and South West St. Andrew for which Portia Simpson Miller is MP. Then there were those who felt that we missed the boat for failing to take into account what they describe as 'padding of requests for assistance' to which they say the system lends itself.
These are some of the very things that contributed to the National Committee on Political Tribalism and the Parliamentary Salaries Committee making the kinds of recommendations they have, about the SESP. The Committee on Political Tribalism
recommended in 1997, that the programme be abolished as it does not seem to be insulated from potential abuse as a vehicle to distribute scarce benefits along partisan lines. The Parliamentary Salaries Committee called for a specific audit of the SESP by the Auditor-General. But the SESP wobbles on.
Audley Shaw, MP for North East Manchester made a statement during our interview, that is strongly implicit of his own lack of confidence in the integrity of the SESP in its present form. In suggesting a future replacement for the SESP Mr. Shaw said he was going to be defending the concept of a dedicated constituency fund where each constituency would receive between $50 million to $100 million. But it would be "scrupulously managed. It has to be forensically audited on an annual basis. It has to be principally confined to capital expenditure and capital development ..." He stressed "scrupulously managed and "forensically audited" repeatedly, which for me is, a giveaway of his true feelings.
But the new programme that Mr. Shaw is proposing is similar to the SESP since the politicians would assume control.
REPLACEMENT PROGRAMME
I say: "SCRAP THE SESP!". Find a replacement programme which emphasises development but without politicians. I am not casting any aspersions on the character of any politician. I have respect for many of them. But they should not be supervising the spending of money in their constituencies. The SESP is not even favourable to all of them, or fair to any of them. As James Robertson, MP for Western St. Thomas said, "It's chicken feed". He calls it "a set-up" in that it gives persons the impression that MPs are getting money when they are not. He also said other MPs had to use their own resources to spend on their
constituencies.
They are placed in this position not only because of the slash in their allocations but because they have been put in charge of distributions. Let us go back to basics and not redesign the functions of the MP. They are into representational politics. Let them go to Parliament with trenchant arguments in the interest of their constituents for infrastructure, for employment, for development ...
My alternative to the SESP is that the SESP Unit in the Cabinet Office be revamped name and all. The new organisation should be given executive agency status with responsibility for developing, executing and managing income-generating projects in the constituencies.
DIRECT APPLICATION
The MPs, being more familiar with the communities in their
divisions, could serve as resource persons, on whom the executive agency could call, for information about the communities where
projects are to be located. Persons seeking employment would apply directly to this new executive agency which, like the others
existing, would operate like a
business entity, earning its own upkeep and ensuring accountability and productivity. It would be accountable to Parliament. There could also be a training component to this new agency where persons would be suitably trained to fill spaces in the projects that are
developed.
The other aspects of the SESP relating to welfare could be absorbed under the PATH. As for the Christmas Work Programme which is financed out of the SESP, I agree with Dr. Neil McGill, MP for West St. Mary, that there could be an economic enablement
programme where persons could do work which would take them through Christmas and beyond, so that there is less dependence on these seasonal projects.
RESOURCES
Since the social component is just as critical to a community's development, I suggest that the Social Development Commission be given the resources to, in collaboration with citizens' associations, develop and maintain community centres, youth clubs and sporting programmes, essentially, broadening what they currently do but ensuring that they get the resources necessary to carry out the function.
When we have conceived that kind of developmental programme that is free from direct political control, that is when we will restore order to at least that aspect of our national life. We would also put a dent in the empires of the dons. They figure prominently in decisions that are taken regarding the development of communities and their residents. It is they who decide who gets the work on the projects and where the project is to be located. This helped to strengthen the economic empire of these dons so-called community leaders. In fact every time I hear the term community leader I cringe at our hypocrisy. Community leaders my back foot! A don dressed in tuxedo is still a don! The same shady creature all dressed up.
Oh! for some order in this country.
