As the main presentations of the budget wrapped up Wednesday, one could say that this budget was different, and an improvement, from those in the past. We heard from the finance minister, Opposition spokesman on finance, leader of the Opposition, and the prime minister, and all presentations, I think, had some good and not so good points. But this is the nature of debates, which should be a process used to get us to the best outcome.
This is a part of the democratic process, as both Government and Opposition offer contending views, which we as the public must digest and analyse and, through our advocacy, make our voices heard so that our “political servants” will listen and make sure that policy reflects what is in the best interest of the country.
My view is that we have started to see that happening, for a variety of reasons, as demonstrated in this just concluded budget debate. I have written in the past about a book called Why Nations Fail, which makes the point that nations that succeed do so because they develop strong institutions that ensure that there is a check on the governmental and political processes. I have further made the point in the past that I believe that Jamaica’s future will get better because we have been developing that institutional capacity to keep a check on political and other excesses.
What has been missing in the past (which I have also argued) was the awareness of the public, which has improved significantly as more people listen to the debate and are much more aware of policy consequences. This is supported by our enviable press freedom environment.
It is this development, I think, that has led us to what, in my view, has been the best budget debate I am aware of. In 2013, when Peter Phillips made the decision to craft an IMF and economic programme, which would be the foundation of all we are achieving today, some people said that he had no choice because his back was against the wall. I disagree with that. He could have gone the route that many other countries have before (the latest being Venezuela) and continued the path of fiscal indiscipline.
I believe he made that decision because of our press freedom and the fact that Jamaicans were much more aware, and by then we had started to develop very strong institutional capacity. The people of Jamaica and the Opposition would not have allowed him to do otherwise, and to his credit he took the decision in the face of a lot of criticism and made a decision many would have crumbled under.
It is against this background that we must see the 2019/20 budget debate, and the benefits we are seeing now in the removal of the distortionary taxes and others outlined by the prime minister. The prime minister outlined the following main points:
Leave A Comment