Delroy Chuck
BEFORE I entered politics, I viewed the Social and Economic Support Programme (SESP) as nothing but pork barrel politics. I wondered if it was just another waste of government's money. Eight years later, I readily agree that it is pork barrel politics but wonder how a Member of Parliament could do without it. Whether the SESP is wasted or used well depends on the MP. I strongly support full accountability and scrutiny and, in fact, MPs do account, in spite of views to the contrary.
The SESP provides one of the few opportunities for the MP to do something worthwhile and directly for his constituency. I spend twice as much as I get from my SESP, through private solicitation and my own resources and, regularly, I despair and remain disappointed at my inability to do enough to ease the need and deprivation. Unfortunately, SESP is seen as another form of government handouts but that is not always the case.
It is easy for those who do not have to contend directly with the weak, sick, injured and vulnerable to dismiss the SESP, but the conscientious MP who walks the gully banks, enters old people's homes, visits the sick and indigent, and engages the unemployed in meaningful discourse, has to respond tangibly and immediately. When people's homes are destroyed by fire, flood and earthquake, it takes weeks for the social services to respond and usually with a paltry sum of $7,000 - $10,000. In the meantime, it is the MP who has to give some form of assistance. When the sick, desperate and dying need urgent and immediate attention, the MP is more often than not the first and only call for help, which is where virtually all an MP's salary is used.
ONEROUS BURDEN
In truth, the collapse of the country's social services, weak government and failure of the economy to deliver needed jobs and opportunities cast an onerous burden on political representatives. The job description of an MP is never ending. Ostensibly, he or she is responsible for fixing roads, cleaning gullies, clearing verges, enforcing the law, stopping night noises, settling disputes, reducing gang warfare, deterring crime and violence, helping school children, burying the dead, tending to the sick and injured, providing jobs and recommendations, and, most importantly, listening and responding to the concerns, complaints and criticisms of his or her constituents. Invariably, the work of the MP is to solve problems and to make representations to the government agencies. Yet, with a government trying to balance the budget, giving contracts to the favoured and genetically connected and more inclined to respond to government MPs, an Opposition MP struggles against the odds.
GOV'T INEFFICIENCY
Naturally, if the government agencies function well, the social services were well funded and responsive, and the economy was capable of providing employment and development, the SESP could go. In today's Jamaica, however, the inefficiency and bureaucracy of government leave the burden on MPs to respond and resolve many of their constituencies' problems. And, in spite of the increasing problems and needs, the SESP has been drastically cut by over 50%. Importantly, people actually believe the MPs get the SESP money; they don't. The SESP is administered and distributed by the government agencies even though the MPs decide how the money is apportioned and allocated.
In North Eastern St. Andrew, the SESP is used mainly for education assistance, community development, employment generation, and Christmas work. Everyone can acknowledge and testify to the clean-up and beautification of the main roads at Christmas time in North Eastern St. Andrew, when almost half the SESP is spent to provide employment. Initially, from 1998 to 2000, I used the SESP to forge peace and harmony in the Barbican, Grants Pen and Shortwood areas, through sports competition and community development. Many will recall the six-a-side football competition in 1998, and the domino tournaments in 1999, which brought the warring gangs together to settle differences and unite across communities. Then, along with solicited donations, the SESP was, and is being, used to provide employment for the young people in the inner cities.
I believe more funds should be available to constituencies to develop and respond to communities on an equitable basis. To be sure, the SESP can be defended, especially if it is used primarily for community development, instead of individual assistance.
Delroy Chuck is an attorney-at-law and Opposition Member of Parliament. He can be contacted by email at delchuck@hotmail.com.
