THE flap between the Bruce Golding Administration and the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) over political management of the massive US$400-million Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme (JDIP) signals that partisanship in pursuit of power will trump the politics of consensus in this election year.

Some $8 billion, to be spent under the programme this financial year, is set out in a document containing expenditures by various Jamaican public bodies. Problem is the Opposition wanted it in the regular capital budget of the Ministry of Finance where they say they would have greater parliamentary oversight.

“We are demanding that the sum to be expended, which is 20 per cent of the capital budget, be totally subject to the review by Parliament like any other project,” said opposition spokesman on finance Dr Omar Davies.

Finance Minister Audley Shaw, while telling the House and the nation Thursday how he plans to finance the $545-billion 2011/2012 budget and grow the economy, dismissed the flap as a “contrived controversy”. Earlier in the week, JLP Chairman Mike Henry had characterised the PNP objection as “political expedience”.

Henry, who has ministerial responsibility for the expenditures — which makes him a very powerful figure in the administration — claimed that what the PNP called a strategy to hide away the expenditure from parliamentary scrutiny was “in reality, simply a change of procedure in the last two years”.

It doesn’t seem there’s a real quarrel about the need for the programme, given the shabby state of much of the country’s physical infrastructure.

At issue is whether the money will be spent in a non-partisan way, whether there will be sufficient transparency and accountability by those who make the key decisions and whether taxpayers will get value for the money they will have to pay back.

The controversy, which had been simmering for some time, deepened when the Opposition walked out of the discussion of the Estimates of Expenditure in Parliament last week. Then they were a no-show when the House convened Thursday to receive and approve the committee report.

Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller explained that the Opposition would not be able to vote on the document because they were not present in Parliament when the Standing Finance Committee was deliberating on certain sections of it.

The thinly veiled worry behind the PNP’s protests is the belief that the Government will try to position the expenditure in such a way as to gain political advantage in key constituencies ahead of elections that are constitutionally due in 2012.

After presiding over 14 straight quarters of negative growth and taking some political fall-out from their handling of the US request for the extradition of Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke, it is widely acknowledged that public works spending in the JDIP would be an election goodie for the Government.

But Thursday Mr Shaw sought to assure that the JLP would not be tempted. “Election year or no election year, the country can be assured that we are not going to ‘run with it’ into another election,” he said.

This was a clear reference to Dr Davies who, as minister of finance in a previous PNP administration, told party faithful that although the situation at the time called for applying the brakes to certain expenditures, he was prepared to ‘run with it’ and apply the constraints after the elections.

The strategy of non-co-operation was evident when the PNP threatened to mount islandwide protests to force a roll-back in gas prices.

Responding to the threat, the Administration did a partial roll-back but the Opposition did not rule out taking to the streets at some point in the future if there were no further concessions in the budget.

On Thursday, Shaw announced some steps that should facilitate some business transactions, introduce more competition in the financial markets and lower some duties and taxes and lower interest rates on student loans.

When Omar Davies and Opposition Leader Simpson Miller make their contributions as the debate continues, the PNP strategy will become clearer. But even at this stage the call for compromise in the Throne Speech a mere two weeks ago is beginning to sound like a distant echo.

Reaching the shore together, or drowning separately?

In the Throne Speech read by Governor General Sir Patrick Allen (April 14) at the ceremonial opening of the 2011-2012 parliamentary year, the Government signalled a desire to re-engage in a national dialogue through the on-again, off-again Partnership for Transformation process.

“The tasks that must be carried out in transforming the economy and improving the social environment cannot be accomplished by the Government acting alone. It requires a partnership with critical stakeholders and the society at large,” the Government said through the voice of the governor general. The Government recognised that “concessions will always have to be made if consensus is to be achieved”.

The resumed Partnership for Transformation would bring together representatives of the Government, private sector, trade unions civil society and — the Government hopes — the Opposition.

In an eloquent turn of phrase pleading for dialogue, the Government said, “We are all in this boat together and none of us can reach the shore before the other.”

Of course, the Government is right on both counts: creating and sustaining an economy that can deliver a decent standard of living for working people and their families and transforming the society from one based on special privilege to equal rights and justice for all are not goals that government alone can achieve — not this Government, not any government.

Problem is, neither the objective conditions nor recent political practice offer any reasonable basis for believing that we will be moving in the direction of the politics of consensus any time soon.

For starters, the PNP have only put the protests on hold and the measures announced by Mr Shaw did not address the core pro-poor demands of Mrs Simpson Miller.

Second, all economic indicators point to continued increases in gas and food prices. These will increase pressure on consumers who will look to Government for answers and the Opposition for alternatives.

Jamaicans would have taken note of a story carried last Thursday in the Jamaica Observer from the East African nation of Kenya in which the Government announced it was removing the tax on maize and wheat imports in a bid to cushion citizens from the effects of rising global food prices. The news came after five persons had reportedly died of hunger.

Third, this is an election year and, if history is any guide, the Government will do what they have to do to retain power while the Opposition will do what they have to do to take it away. So they are likely to co-operate when it suits them, not when the national interest demands it.

Fourth, there is a history of ambivalence among stakeholders to the process and outcomes of the partnership talks: the private sector leadership gets very energetic when the society is under the kind of violent pressure that threatens business activity and social stability; the response of the parties depends on whether they are in or out of power.

Today, we are a long way from Mr Golding’s 2007 promise of a new style of governance. “…Under my leadership and under a Government that I would lead, we would seek to establish a new framework that would seek to establish an inclusiveness in the relationship between the Government and the Opposition.” If reality could only catch up with promise!

kcr@cwjamaica.com