Ronald Thwaites | ‘Yu nevva do nuttin for me’

That was her evaluation of the member of parliament’s (MP) performance. “Look how the constituency stay bad!” “Boss, like how me support you, jus’ set me up nuh,” another pleaded. Those who have served long will not find such assessments unfamiliar. Neither will those recently elected. The shine on their ball is off and the freshmen are already experiencing the perils of transactional politics.

There is a community suffering terrible bloodshed right now, largely caused by disputes about how the election money was shared and the reality that it has run out. So political activity which should reduce conflict has made it worse! That is a horrible travesty. Sadly, when the state of emergency is imposed, the gun and money providers won’t be detained. It will happen again and again. Guess why.

Some events last week tell the story. Mikael Phillips pleaded for more money to clean gullies in Manchester. Andrew Holness urged his colleagues to make the little money stretch. Another lady MP, whose name I can’t recall, was seen storing cement, zinc and plyboard to dole out. Mark Golding’s effort to build a house for an indigent Westmorelite created political epilepsy in the parish council. Local government representatives want their version of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) to remain relevant. And Maas George Wright has gone clear for the next election: his recent conduct having earned him the favour of perhaps the most politically influential member of government – the ineffable Minister Everald Warmington, who controls the roadwork!

HUNGRIER BY THE DAY

Another member warns against using all the CDF for “welfare”. But what else can you expect when hand-outs are the stuff of benefit politics; and even if that were not so, more voters are getting hungrier by the day, and local elections soon come.

Is all this normal? Is this the way it ought to be? What is the proper role of the elected representative in an economy of chronic scarcity, a context of embedded tribalism, and elements of bureaucracy who are often no more even-handed than the elected class?

In the constitutional model we say we follow, the functions of those chosen by the people are not spelled out. If you look back at the examples of last week, the representative is expected to be a public works superintendent, a housing developer, a social worker, disaster first responder, general ‘boops’, and had better be an agent of Food For The Poor.

The central function of passing good laws is hardly the focus. Parliament can barely meet once a week, and most committees find every excuse for barely functioning. Don’t even mention asking questions or debating private members’ motions.

The MPs can expect to be held fully responsible by their constituents, but without power, very little money and insatiable real need, they become largely mendicants for development favours. For the privilege of being able to continue the effort, they become acolytes of a system which cannot deliver. “Yu no do nuttin for me” becomes the inevitable verdict.

We really could do much better. A reasonable social welfare system, a swift and responsive public works apparatus, and a revised scheme for funding education and health could replace the pressure on the CDF. Why not?

TAKE LEGISLATIVE MATTERS SERIOUSLY

A bipartisan recognition on the futility of the present order and a resolve to take legislative matters more seriously, could transform the efficiency of Gordon House.

In absence of that, policy and lawmaking become the aegis solely of the executive and a small coterie of public servants. Check the fate of the teaching services bill and countless other much-needed laws. Special-interest groups and the excuse about the Parliamentary Counsel’s preoccupation can justify any delay. And the odds are off that the Road Traffic Act will actually make it by December even though the prime minister raises hell.

The legislators’ roles of thoughtful consideration, acute listening, and educating the public; all essential to good legislation, get squashed by the superior need to defer slavishly to the Cabinet and vote mindlessly. We end up with an imbalance of power between the executive and the legislature and the almost feudal authority of the prime minister.

The late Ralph Brown told me that he had decided not to offer himself again in 1992 because of his frustration at not being able to do more for his constituents. History will record him as being a dedicated and sensitive representative. Which of us, past and present, can confidently assure the people who chose us that their reasonable expectations will be achieved by our collective representations? And if not that, what is the big sacrifice and huge expenditure really worth?

In retrospect, I acknowledge the shortcomings of my own tenure. But there need be no apology for seeing things more clearly and speaking of them more insistently in the freedom of hindsight. The purpose is not to discredit, but to hope that we can fashion a better system. That would start by acknowledging that we have a problem. Last week’s concerns and activities of the parliamentarians mentioned above should prove that.

Rev Ronald G. Thwaites is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.