Dr Winford James
Max Albert and I continue our discussions on the Tobago Autonomy Question.
In Part 2, we ended by saying: “But enough has been said. The new fiscal year is approaching and Tobago must get its fair share. In this case, and if nothing else, the politics demand it.”
Today we ask a bundle of questions. Quite naturally, we do not have all the answers. But we need to know anyway. Patient Tobagonian Child also needs to know, because his or her future quality of life depends upon the answers.
For the time being, Scarborough and Port-of-Spain are friends. But is the friendship genuine or convenient? More importantly, will political friendship translate into Tobago receiving its fair share of the estate? We will soon find out.
Earlier in this series, we advanced the idea of a National Fiscal Framework, teasing out how elements of the economy might be weighted in determining Tobago’s equitable share: population, land mass, geography, developmental need, statutory responsibility, and other measurable considerations.
However, allocation by political instinct cannot forever substitute for allocation by transparent principle.
Will these matters finally be settled once and for all? Is the solution overdue? And, after our excursions into the old figures of 4.03 per cent and 6.9 per cent, what will the Final Mathematics be?
The political picture may have changed, but vestigial shackles upon Tobago’s development persist.
Will Chief Secretary Farley Augustine be satisfied? More importantly, what are his minimum and maximum percentages? Good governance and democracy mandate that Tobagonian Child should know.
Surely, Tobago’s fiscal entitlement cannot be reduced to the personal satisfaction and vagaries of a Chief Secretary. We remember former Chief Secretary Orville London telling Tobago, budget after budget exercises, that he was “comfortable”, and, on other occasions assuring us that he was “not uncomfortable.” One had to admire the political dexterity. But “comfortable” and “not uncomfortable” cannot constitute a satisfying description of a fiscal formula. That was playing smart with foolishness.
Tobago should know, before the national Budget is read, what its leadership considers as the acceptable floor, the desirable range, and the point beyond which Tobago ought properly to say: No.
Our bredren Dr Vanus James reacted to Part 2 with an intriguing proposition: “If you follow the law, you’ll need a new DRC [Dispute Resolution Commission] to be convened and that requires a dispute about allocations and the agreement of the PM.” Obviously, the last six words frightened us. So, we went back to the law.
Part V of Act No. 40 of 1996 is instructive. Section 56 establishes the Dispute Resolution Commission. Section 57 provides for its composition and requires, except for the Chairman, that its membership be reconstituted for each dispute. Section 58 provides that before a dispute reaches the Commission it must be referred to the Prime Minister, who must refer it to Cabinet. Cabinet then conveys its position to the Assembly in writing.
There is an important observation to be made. The Prime Minister has a significant procedural role, but the Act does not say that establishing a DRC depends upon his/her agreement. The Commission exists by statute. Indeed, section 44 permits the Assembly, when dissatisfied with an allocation or any part of it, to refer the matter to the Commission in accordance with Part V.
And that raises another bundle of political questions. What will the friendship between Scarborough and Port-of-Spain actually produce for Tobago? If the allocation is unacceptable, will friendship survive disagreement? Will a polemical situation develop? And if it does, how will Tobago East David Thomas and Tobago West representatives David and Joel Sampson respond?
They are certainly no ANR Robinson and Winston Murray, nor Morgan Job and Pamela Nicholson, who featured in Tobago’s parliamentary struggles and the previous DRC debate. But Thomas and Sampson can be dangerous politically. History does not require them to become their predecessors; it requires them to understand the struggle and recognise when their own moment has arrived.
Political friendship is desirable. Cooperation between Scarborough and Port-of-Spain is necessary. Tobago does not require perpetual warfare with Central Government to prove its autonomy. But friendship cannot mean silence, and cooperation cannot mean surrendering the responsibility to articulate Tobago’s interests.
If the friendship is genuine, it should withstand Tobago asking difficult questions. If the fiscal relationship is maturing, Tobago should not have to quarrel every year over an allocation whose underlying principles nobody can satisfactorily explain.
We have followed the old mathematics. We examined the Tobago House of Assembly’s Statement of Case, interrogated the DRC range, and considered recurrent need, development expenditure, revenue, borrowing capacity, and the peculiar statutory considerations Parliament itself recognised for Tobago. Now comes the contemporary test.
What percentage does Tobago believe represents its fair share? What is the minimum? What is the maximum? What factors produce those numbers? And would Patient Tobagonian Child understand the calculation when s/he sees it?
The new fiscal year approaches. Will we witness an erstwhile political friendship maintained by comfortable ambiguity? Or will Scarborough and Port of Spain finally give Tobago something more durable: an acceptable Final Mathematics?
Dr Winford James is a retired UWI lecturer who has been analysing issues in education, language, development and politics in T&T and the wider Caribbean on radio and TV since the 1970s.
