Chapter II of the Constitution of Guyana sets out the Principles and Bases of the Political, Economic and Social System of Guyana. Articles in this chapter require the promotion of recreation, leisure and culture. These and the other principles and bases, such as the wide goals of economic development and goals of the economic system, form the highest degree and most recognized priorities of national development because they are contained in the supreme law of the land – the Constitution of Guyana.
Notwithstanding the criticisms that Mashramani has attracted over the years to the effect that it is a pale imitation of Trinidad’s carnival, its enduring popularity as an expression of forms of Guyana’s celebration of its Republican status has grown over time. It has become a national event that has official sanction and in which participation is wide, voluntary and joyful. Much State resources are devoted to it and the private sector and its employees and the public participate with enthusiasm. Although there is criticism to the effect that Mashramani does not represent the height of Guyana’s cultural expressions or achievements, nevertheless if has embedded itself as annual event that celebrates Guyana. State spending to facilitate wider or more purposeful participation in Mashramani, or to achieve any of the goals in Chapter II, would constitute a priority spending for national development.
Apart from Chapter II the Constitution where else are national development priorities, as mandated by the Natural Resources Act and the subject of recently filed court proceedings, set out? Can it be that the Minister of Finance’s annual Budget Speech which reviews the past year’s economic performance and sets out the objectives for the coming year contains the national development priorities for the ensuing year? What about when the Minister of Works, the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Agriculture, to name a few at random, set out in detail the projects that their ministries will continue or commence? But the Minister of Finance may speak about other matters, such as salaries for public servants and the Estimates would contain request for the approval of sums for salaries. Would not salaries be categorized as an aspect of national development priority within a broad context? For example, can national development occur without the payment of salaries to public servants?
Government decisions, as distinct from the National Assembly, are also sources of national development priorities. The Amaila Hydroelectric Project, the Gas to Shore Project and the new Demerara River Bridge were decided by Governments, not by the National Assembly. The number of house lots the Government will distribute in a particular year is decided by the Government and so are numerous national development priorities over almost the entire gamut of government activities. These only reach the National Assembly when financing is sought for particular aspects of a project.
The diverse determinants of national development priorities and the vast array of matters for which expenditures are approved by the National Assembly suggest that there is hardly anything that funds are approved for that is not a national development priority. And who decides? And what is the mechanism? There is no Standing Order that specifically accommodates a mechanism to determine a national development priority. There could potentially be a motion moved by the Minister of Finance, prior to the presentation of a Financial Paper, seeking the approval of the National Assembly for the expenditure to be deemed of a national development priority. But one Standing Order, 26(f), provides that a motion shall not anticipate discussion of a matter that is likely to be discussed in the same Session. If a motion seeking approval of the expenditure as a matter of national development priority is debated and succeeds, it would be anticipatory of a request for the National Assembly to approve the funds. The Standing Orders are not designed to accommodate these procedures.
It has to be assumed that the National Assembly is aware of all of these issues when legislation is being considered and that the intention is that such legislation be implemented in a seemless manner. Just as the Standing Orders are not designed to accommodate the above procedures, legislation could not conceivably be designed to encourage violation of the Standing Orders or debate as to whether one or more articles in Chapter II of the Constitution constitute a national development priority if the intention of a specific legislation is or is not a national development priority.
The debate in relation to what is a national priority, how it can be determined and who is to determine it, are far more extensive and complicated than these few words would indicate. It is eventually expected that further deep and penetrating study which can better be ventilated in a court of law, rather than a short article, and pronounced upon with more considered deliberation may settle the issue. It may well turn out that the objective and intention of the words merely suggest that it is up to the government to ensure that the expenditures are for national development priorities and that such explicit or implicit categorization of a particular expenditure would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny where it is considered necessary.