We have heard shifting positions from the Government on whether Jamaica faces an economic crisis. We have had shifting positions on whether we need the International Monetary Fund (IMF) too. We have had shifting personnel - four different lead negotiators with the IMF and the new Bank of Jamaica (BOJ) governor might become the fifth. We have had two BOJ governors, two junior finance ministers and three financial secretaries in the last two years.

We have had shifting timelines for the IMF. We were told that we would have an IMF agreement by September, then October, then November and now December. We have been told shifting stories about why we have not had an agreement with the IMF as yet. Daryl Vaz said the IMF wants Air Jamaica sold. Air Jamaica's president said he was hearing that for the first time. Edmund Bartlett said it would only be a partial divestment. Audley Shaw said he would not comment. He needed to talk to Vaz.

RESPONSIBILITY

The Westminster system does not guarantee that a government will know what it is doing but it tries to make government responsible to parliament for what it does. The Jamaica Constitution requires that the minister of finance and the prime minister (PM) be elected members of the House so that they would be accountable to it. A nominated senator could be a minister of any other ministry. Yet Shaw has, in practice, not been responsible, not particularly visible and apparently not very knowledgeable. A Gleaner editorial of November 25 referred to Golding as the 'de facto finance minister'.

Shaw has not negotiated on our behalf with the IMF. He has not reported, debated and updated the country on those ongoing negotiations. He has not produced a medium-term economic plan for the IMF, missing successive deadlines. The country has suffered successive credit downgrades. His ministry has failed to divest Air Jamaica. Shaw did not report to Parliament on Latibeaudiere's dismissal. Vaz, not Shaw, said the IMF negotiations hinged on the sale of Air Jamaica.

PARLIAMENT

Shaw's job is to make up a credible budget for our critical needs. Anne Shirley observed (Financial Gleaner, November 20) that without an IMF stamp of approval, the Government won't be able to access budgetary support from the multilaterals, support it won't get from the IMF itself. Shaw's job is the second-most important one in the Westminster tradition. He doesn't seem to be doing it.

Government as a whole has not allowed itself to be properly responsible to Parliament. Robert Pickersgill, chairman of the opposition party in Parliament, chided Golding for announcing matters of national importance on party platforms rather than in Parliament. Examples are the resignation of the former commissioner of police, the replacement of the permanent secretary at the Office of the Prime Minister, and in the area of financial management, the announcement of the fourth missed timeline for concluding an agreement with the IMF. Golding subsequently used his party conference to make more statements about the IMF and his interest rate and investment hopes. Shaw used it to avoid responsibility, blaming the PNP as usual.

Omar Davies of the Opposition accused the prime mini-ster, the chief political figure in the Westminster system, of telling only half-truths to Parliament about Latibeaudiere's dismissal (see Gleaner, November 15 & 16). He did not go so far as to say that the PM deliberately misled Parliament and country. But if the PM's support staff had failed to do its homework, the PM owes Parliament, the country and Latibeaudiere a clarification in Parliament and an apology for conveying the wrong impression. Anyway, shouldn't the minister of finance know the full details and be responsible for explaining them?

Under the Constitution, each minister is responsible for the subjects assigned to him or her and the Cabinet is collectively responsible to Parliament. It is respon-sible to Parliament first, not to the party platforms and the media. It is responsible for telling the truth, not half-truths. Cabinet is also responsible for the general control and direction of the government.

If there is a confusion of responsibility and accountability (as there also seems to be over national security), then the general control and direction of the Government will be confusing and even reckless and irresponsible. It might well appear this way to the IMF and the credit rating agencies, and this is already costing the country billions of dollars because of credit downgrades.

CONFIDENCE MIGHT IMPROVE

Dr Pauline Knight, acting director general of the Planning Institute of Jamaica, said that the economy is doing badly and confidence might improve if we have an agreement with the IMF. Moody's rating agency said that an IMF agreement was crucial for confidence in the Government's fiscal management, but said that agreement might not be within reach yet. Omar Davies has criticised the chaotic nature and lack of credibility of the budgets. When public-sector planners, the opposition, the IMF and credit-rating agencies are all confused by the lack of control and direction of policy, the executive has failed.

The leader of the Opposition captured the problem squarely with her comment on the reappointment of Michael Stern to that expensive executive, another sign of confused policy. Portia Simpson Miller said the Governments approach "makes it impossible for anyone to have any certainty of what this administration will do from one day to the next - while the economic situation worsens - and there is still no clear sign of a strategy or of any direction from the administration that will take the country forward". This is precisely the point.

Golding calls for a debate with the Opposition. He should be raising the many matters of national importance in Parliament so that they can be debated there and recorded officially, and where his minister of finance can be held responsible and demonstrate his knowledge.

In truth, the Government has been confused, the minister of finance has not been responsible and the Cabinet has not been accountable to Parliament. The reason matters must be brought to Parliament is that they can be scrutinised there, members can be held to account and be required to give an explanation and sanctioned if they mislead Parliament. Parliament has powers to appoint select committees or commissions to investigate issues further. Parliament has rules for debate and Hansard records the debate.

USELESS PARLIAMENT?

The core principle of the Westminster system is government through parliament. Parliament might be weak relative to the executive but it is still a stronger check and balance than the party platform where members bond together for political reasons and where party tribalism divides rather than unites people on issues. Westminster government does not operate through the party, the media or business associations but through Parliament. What's the use of a new parliamentary building if we are not prepared to honour Parliament?

Guidance notes (1992-1997) for ministers in the UK parliament say that ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament, must be as open as possible and correct any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. The PM, minister of finance and Cabinet must be reminded that they are responsible and accountable to Parliament and so they should debate and tell the truth there.

Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. Email: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm or columns@gleanerjm.com.