The Importance of Shared Sacrifice
At the beginning of the month of October, citizens in my country began a new budget year. This year's budget, proposed by the sitting government and read before Parliament last week, introduced a number of measures styled to manage the nation's resources, and for those in favor, the proposed measures are prudent. The measures included:
A reduction in our energy subsidy,
A hike in utility rates,
A cap on the 4% wage increase offer to public servants,
Rebates for the implementation of renewable energy in agriculture
Ex-gratia payments to health workers for their work during the pandemic
And more.
Against the backdrop of rising inflation and other economic concerns around the world, this year's national budget received mixed reviews from the populace. One concern raised by a member of the trade union sector, representing the interests of the working class, for example, was of interest to me. The trade unionist whose name is Michael Annisette, in a panel discussion, pointed to allowances and perks afforded politicians in office, and called on parliamentarians to take a wage cut and to share the sacrifice proposed for the rest of the population as he argued that "the burden of economic transiency has fallen disproportionately on the working people and the most vulnerable in our society.”
It is an interesting concept, though not one that's entirely new, calling on office holders to share the pain. In 2020, Jacinda Arden, the Prime Minister of New Zealand and government ministers took a pay cut in solidarity with the population suffering from losses brought on by the Covid 19 pandemic.
Now, it might be argued that such an act is performative and that there is no real impact on the finances of a country if an office holder were to take a pay cut, however, I do think that the symbolic act is an important one for a population already struggling to make ends meet.
This year, members of the population were disgruntled by the attitudes of government ministers proposing draconian measures in a manner that appeared to be cavalier and insensitive while making little mention of the sacrifices they proposed to bear.
Defending unpopular budget proposals, officials were quoted as accusing the public of wanting everything for nothing and suggesting things like:
Riding bicycles to work and cooking on coal pots to save fuel costs.
Dismissing the concept of working from home while simultaneously calling on the population to better schedule trips to the capital city to lessen traffic.
Growing up, I remember my mom often reminding us, it is not what you do, but often how you do it that matters.
In that vein, while it is true that a lot can be said for hardships experienced around the world and the fact that, comparatively, our burden is not the heaviest as well as the fact that there is a critical need for extreme prudence in expenditure, I think sometimes that one has to take a lot of care in the delivery of one's message, particularly when that message is unfavorable.
Proposing to have conversations with stakeholders while wearing earplugs; packaging austere messages with insensitivity, haughtiness, and careless insult, and delivering those messages to a population unprepared for additional sacrifices in a post Covid 19 era is a recipe for disaster.
Symbolism, I would argue, is important. Relatability is key. Having eye level conversations is critical. Shared sacrifice is simple. Sprinkling austerity with a bit of quid pro quo so that the populace does not think that it must continuously give up with little to no realized benefits in return might be a good idea. Might even be a better idea not to suggest that the concerns of the populace are the cries of a privileged and pampered public. Might be.
But I am, of course, no economist, no public servant, no politician, so what do I know about matters of state?
Resources
Captivating as ever. Always a pleasure reading your articles, they are particularly enjoyable. It's been a while Trifecta, good to see you're back.