Budget debate and the role of the opposition

The budget debate commenced with a flourish with 11 times Finance Minister, Mr Ronnie De Mel, flinging the fifth consecutive budget presented by Deputy Finance Minister Prof G. L. Peiris on the floor of the parliamentary chamber claiming that it was an ‘ incomplete budget’ because Prof Peiris was compelled to withdraw the 25 percent railfare hike proposal.On the opening day of the Second Reading, other opposition speakers too had taken on the Deputy Finance Minister, on the grounds that he had painted an all too rosy picture.

In our comments on the budget, we too said that the economic indicators presented were all too impressive . Prof. Peiris was confident that the country was steaming ahead on a sound macro economic system into the next millennium but we were sceptical of the economic indicators of the Central Bank like the Opposition speakers.

The Opposition attempting to tear the budget proposals into shreds is a parliamentary practice in most countries and the public is accustomed to this exercise. But often they question the purpose of all this fiery rhetoric. In the years gone by, when civics was taught as a subject, teachers used to thunder on the uses of budget debates pointing out that it does give an indication of how public funds are spent. In Sri Lanka, however, budget debates till 1994 were more of an ideological confrontation — capitalism vs socialism and public expenditure took a back seat.

Since Independence and till 1994, budget debates had those erudite Marxists describing UNP budgets as ‘capitalist budgets which would result in burdening the suffering masses and making the rich, richer’ while the UNPers — landed aristocrats, capitalists and the bourgeoise — claimed that socialism, the politics of envy, had resulted in the poor getting poorer. After 1994, when the Peoples Alliance took office, budget debates were devoid of this political ideology. By the time the PA assumed power, the world had changed and capitalism which the socialists vowed to bury, was still there but socialism was spoken of no more after the collapse of the socialist empire. Radical socialists and dyed- in -the- wool Marxists adopted the free economy and the advise of the IMF, World Bank and other international monetary lending institutions.This resulted in both the UNP, SLFP and the Marxist parties adopting — or at least following — market economic principles.

Thus, there is very little difference in political ideology and economic policies of the two main political blocs.The criticism that the UNP can offer on the budget is ‘ we were much better in the implementation of our policies while you are fumbling and have still not got your act together’. This is indeed correct. Mr J.R. Jayewardene, with his massive parliamentary majority enacted a constitution tailor made to achieve his political objectives and transformed the economy from a mixed variety of socialism to an unbridled capitalist economy. He got massive development projects going such as the multi - billion Mahaveli Scheme , GCEC, housing programmes and the resurrection of the private sector which was on its last legs.

The UNP was fortunate in that being the first country in South Asia to adopt a market economy it was held up as a model by the west who were generous in their economic assistance. After 17 years, when the PA assumed office, that western munificence had ceased to be. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of President Kumaratunga and her government to deliver the goods having made extremely rash election pledges.

The economy, although it may be on a sound footing as Prof. Peiris claims, has yet to take off and the PA, at the most, has only two more years at the levers of power.And the world economic climate is by far not favourable for an economic upsurge in Sri Lanka, despite Prof. Peiris’s optimism.

UNP speakers can make merry during the budget debate but they too have a responsibility. Since there is very little to choose from in the economic policies pursued by the PA and the UNP, it is incumbent on UNP speakers to reveal how they would have reacted if they were in power.It’s different to the days gone by when it could be said that’ socialism’ or ‘capitalism’ was the panacea. They should, if they can, reveal their strategy on how the fallout of the global economic recession on our economy could be minimised and how the North- East conflict, which is a tremendous drain on our resources, could be halted. But this has not been the tradition of Sri Lankan politics.

‘We will show what we can do when we are elected’ has been their answer to any crisis’.

An intelligent electorate will want to know what the opposition too has to offer although the responsibility of resolving the current problems lies with the government.