Which of the 60 members of Parliament marching along Duke Street to enter the outgrown Gordon House for the state opening of the new parliamentary year come Tuesday will be destitute after they have retired?

The odds are high. "The majority of the 122 retired Jamaican parliamentarians still alive," a recent newspaper story reports, "are facing destitution, some ravaged by health problems and dependent on alms to survive. Their numbers include former ministers of Government."

At the same time, some current occupants of the house, like Shahine Robinson, feel that the West Portland by-election costing $30 million was an unnecessary waste of tax dollars. Disdainful of both the Constitution and the court ruling which led to the by-election, legislator Robinson, whose own legitimacy in the House is under the dual-citizenship axe, ranted in Parliament last Tuesday that, "it is a distraction that we could have well done without and it is also an unnecessary expense because it cost taxpayers $30 million to put on that election and I believe that those energies, time and funds could have been channelled in a better direction"- perhaps into the constitutionally-challenged Constituency Development Fund, which she manages in the House.

I am both amazed and alarmed at the lawless tendencies of our lawmakers, a lawlessness sustained by a combination of arrogance and ignorance. But today's business is a discussion on another matter: the cost of government. There is a common thread linking the plight of ex-parliamentarians, the Robinson rant, and the cramped parliamentary space in which she delivered it. It is the popular view that Government should be conducted on the cheap and anything but bare-bones necessity must be considered a 'burden' upon the taxpayers.

Costs of governance

Well, I don't agree. The costs of governance must be adequately met - and cheerfully - from remuneration to members of Government and running elections, to providing facilities and staff.

Held captive by negative public sentiment, a prime minister descends to the ridiculous of refusing a new car to replace a 16-year-old one prone to breakdowns. And members of Parliament, backing the 'moral' proposition of a member, are willing to accept a salary cut in the interest of the economy facing a global crisis. Noble sentiment!

The fact of the matter is that if every tax dollar spent on the executive and legislature of Government were taken away from 'de ole tief dem', as some people seem to want, and evenly divided among all Jamaicans, nobody could buy a bread from their share. If shared only among 'the poor', each slice would be slightly bigger, but equally useless as scarce benefit.

To make the thing concrete, taking an average salary of $3 million, the 60 MPs earn $180 million per year [senators are not paid]. Doubling that to cover all manner of other expenses, we arrive at $360 million.

This is the kind of money which returning resident of the House, Daryl Vaz, boasts, was spent on road-repair contracts alone in West Portland, and the job of road rehabilitation in that one constituency is nowhere near complete.

This is only 0.072 per cent of the half-trillion dollars [$500 billion] budget for fiscal year 2008-2009. Shared among the 2.7 million of us, we each walk away with $133.33. A 10 per cent salary cut for 60 MPs is the grand sum of $18 million, which meets less than half the begrudged cost of the necessary West Portland by-election.

The due costs of democratic processes like elections should be met without complaints or silly opportunity-cost calculations. And I argue for government to be financed to be efficient, well appointed and beautiful.

New Parliament building

Let's begin with a beautiful, gracious, charming and functional Parliament building. Legislative and executive spaces in 'civilised' countries are like that - a source of national civic pride and a place for locals and tourists to visit to gawk. The decay of downtown Kingston, the home of the Parliament, should be a cause of shame and embarrassment to successive government administrations. Cramped Gordon House surrounded by decay is no place of pride.

Can you imagine a beautiful Parliament complex in a garden setting on spacious grounds with promenades displaying statues of heroes and leaders? A Parliament with office space for legislators and support staff? A Parliament with research assistants and a first-class library? Can you imagine members being paid at levels reflecting the value of the most serious decision-making in the land?

Why can't we create a Whitehall of executive suites for the ministries? And parish council offices to match? Public space of all kind is too rough and cheap in Jamaica. And poverty is not any insurmountable obstacle.

It is good to see the media undoing some of the damage that it has so well helped to do in creating the image of the crooked politician. The exposed "perilous financial state" of the majority of the 122 surviving MPs does not suggest Swiss bank accounts stuffed with loot from the Treasury. Undoubtedly, ministers in particular, have the power to allocate state resources in favour of, shall we say, their pet projects. But as the retired and ever-outspoken O.D. Ramtallie, a former minister of construction, says, it's not like "you have the ministry's cheque book and you sign the cheques for you and your friends".

Let's get the balance right in the stories.

The high personal cost of participation in politics and government is a largely untold story. The truth is participation is a major sacrifice. Family is affected. Personal freedom, privacy and security are affected. The godparent role in constituencies is extremely pressuring. Some MPs spend personal money to keep demanding constituents happy.

And professional life definitely suffers. Many politicians give up professional income to earn considerably less on the payroll of Government. But even more detrimental to their future is the problem of rebuilding businesses and practices after Parliament, or, God forbid, having to find suitable employment in an environment generally hostile to politicians when they are not being milked for a let-off. As retired MP Easton Douglas is quoted as saying, "If after retirement they can get a job with the Government, then there is a level of criticism."

Not a normal profession

On these counts, the 'profession' of politics is not a normal profession. It is more akin to military service, and the 'vets' should be given special care. Mark you, the whole pension and safety-net issue needs serious attention for the entire population. But I agree with Butch Stewart. We must take special and better care of former government members.

Martin Henry is a communications consultant who may be reached at medhen@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.