Scrap the Constituency Development Fund

Martin Henry, Contributor

PERHAPS THE majority of citizens, certainly of the 'poor', who dominate voting in Jamaica, and all parliamentarians are in favour of the Constituency Development Fund. The only problem they have with it is that it is too little. The prime minister was most apologetic when the promised allocation to all the members of the House of Representatives had to be cut back.

Dr Herbert Gayle, anthropologist of social violence, has joined The Gleaner and me and a handful of others in calling for the scrapping of the CDF [Gleaner Editorial, Monday June 7, 'Listen to Dr Gayle and scrap the CDF']. Thanks doc.

Recent events involving Tivoli Gardens provide a powerful platform from which to renew the call for discontinuing the CDF. The special benefits flowing from the Ministry of Development and Welfare, 1962-1972, which made the conversion of Dungle, "the rectum of the city", into Tivoli Gardens, which developed the habit of giving all its votes to the architect who designed it, somehow, never managed to spill over into Denham Town, or into Hannah Town where the first political gang, the PNP's Matthew's Lane 69ers, had been established.

Wilton Hill, the minister of housing during the same period, not to be outdone by his colleague at Development and Welfare, built Wilton Gardens, better known as Rema, which delivered all of its votes to the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP).

Anthony Spaulding used housing to build Arnett Gardens in the 1970s, which made South St Andrew so secure for the People's National Party (PNP), despite the Wilton Gardens JLP enclave within it, that when a safe seat was required for Omar Davies to ascend to the office of minister of finance, no better choice of seat could be found and the incumbent member of parliament (MP) politely resigned to make way for Davies to enter the lower House through a by-election.

Bruce Golding similarly used housing to convert Central St Catherine into a 'cyaan lose' JLP safe seat. So much so that when he ran there for the National Democratic Movement in the 1997 general election, although he garnered 30 per cent of the votes unprecedented for a third party - the rest went to Olivia 'Babsy' Grange, the JLP candidate.

same principle

True, the CDF at $20 million 2010 dollars per MP, or even 10 times that, does not have the same sort of vote-securing muscle power as the budget of a ministry, but the direction and the principle are the same.

The ground of support for the CDF is that the people's representative has to have a little something in hand to assist constituents and to undertake 'development' projects in the constituency, at his or her own discretion.

There are at least two things fundamentally wrong with this: It is not the job of the MP and when these functions are usurped it is bound to have a corrupting influence on the political system. Let us take each in turn.

Ask the average MP, not to mention his or her constituents, what the roles and responsibilities of a member of parliament are and at the top of the list is likely to be providing some kind of direct benefit to the 'people'. A media colleague of mine became most indignant in discussion over my call to scrap the CDF. "So how is the MP to help the people, especially the poor and the most vulnerable?" One of the new civic groups pressing for improved governance, this one made up predominantly of disenchanted young people, who want to take back Jamaica, wants to write a job description for MPs, since they don't seem to have one now and we don't know what specifically members of parliament are to be held responsible for.

It would have been an act of gross constitutional recklessness and negligence if the Jamaica Constitution, coming out of the great Westminster tradition and, with one of its two longest chapters [Chapter V] devoted to parliament, did not have a 'job description' for members of parliament. There is one, albeit only 20 words long: "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Jamaica." Yes, that's it. Section 48(1).

One of the insults hurled against the present member for Western Kingston and Prime Minister, Bruce Golding, by the former MP and a former Prime Minister, Edward Seaga, was that he (Seaga) had advised Golding that the seat did not suit him (Golding) because all he wanted to do as MP was to go to Parliament to pass laws. But, implied, the people needed paternal assistance, possibly including assistance to hold their enemies at bay, enemies which may include the security forces.

It is true that the Constitution immediately goes on to say in Section 48(2): "Without prejudice to the generality of Subsection (1) ... Parliament may by law determine the privileges, immunities and powers of the Two Houses and the members thereof." Presumably, this could include the instituting of a Constituency Development Fund, giving revenue to MPs for discretionary expenditure in their constituencies. It is my considered view that such a course of action is indeed, prejudicial to subsection (1) both in principle and the known results of practice. The CDF cannot engender "peace, order and good government".

The first and foremost objective of an elected representative, especially of the career politician type, which dominates modern democracies, is not the 'development' of the constituency and the welfare of constituents, it is to get re-elected. No breathing politician, an egotistic and corruptible human, not an angel from heaven, would fail to consider how to use the resources at their disposal, including state money handed to them, to improve their chances of re-election. Now much of this can be done lawfully and even reasonably equitably. But the dangers of corruption are large, particularly in our tribalised political environment.

Dr Herbert Gayle argued to The Gleaner that "we must remove all monies that members of parliament receive from the State, which I assure you are used in mobilisation and negotiations". An arrangement like the CDF "creates a relationship between the don and the people and the politician ... instead of central government and the people - the kind of country in which persons do not relate to Government but to people on the ground. (This) provides you with a political economy of violence." The fight over scarce benefits by hostile tribes.

fundamental function

A fundamental function of our constitutional arrangement, as for other democratic constitutions, is the balance of power, with appropriate checks and balances to try and avoid the abuse of invested power, which will hurt the rights and freedoms of citizens.

In the constitutional scheme of things, an independent and neutral public service implements the decisions and policies of Government. An MP, armed with state-revenue resources, has only two options for pursuing development in their constituency: to dictate to public service agencies in the discharge of their duties, or to create a delivery system. In either case, the strong temptation to reward their people will become a reality on the ground in many instances. In essence, the money will be used to 'buy votes'.

So, how is a member of parliament to help his/her constituents? What the Constitution envisaged, but is now badly hobbled in practice, is that MPs would be able to propose laws and policy directions good for Jamaica and benefit the piece of Jamaica they were elected to represent.

For example, the Standing Finance Committee of Parliament, for very good reason, is the entire membership of the House of Representatives. The Constitution intends that MPs have power to influence the Budget and directives to state agencies. This is too little the case. And the preferred solution is for the super-dominant executive having usurped much of the power of the legislature, to give elected representatives bits of state revenue over which they can exercise personal discretionary spending power to the corruption of the Constitution. And almost everyone is happy with the arrangement.

I have, on a few occasions, discussed with Ronnie Thwaites, MP for Central Kingston, one of the most active backbenchers in the House, and radio talk-show host, how members of parliament could exercise considerable power through cross-party caucuses. In Thwaites' own case, as I have pointed out to him, he is one of a dozen or more MPS with inner-city communities as part, or the whole, of their constituencies. Why can't these MPs band together to demand budgeting for inner-city renewal?

parliamentary rebellion

The executive is already floating plans for a multibillion-dollar rehabilitation of western Kingston following the Tivoli incursion. What about all the other gari-sonised inner-city communities. There should be a parliamentary rebellion for inclusion. Not a dollar for west Kingston, if none for us.

Two-thirds of the House is rural and farm belt MPs, yet there is no caucus for rural development and agriculture. There has been an Urban Development Corporation since 1968 but no rural equivalent. RADA is specifically for agriculture and agriculture is not synonymous with rural development.

Amazingly, MPs are satisfied with $20m CDF crumbs from the master's table, which strains the Constitution, rather than banding together and haggling for multibillion-dollar development schemes around the cross-party and cross-country needs and interests of their constituents but executed by public-service agencies. And equally amazing, constituents think they are getting a great deal from the 'lickle' CDF droppings, as the good people of Tivoli thought, up to the time, that Papa's gifts were manna from heaven.

Martin Henry is a communications consultant, who may be reached at medhen@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com