If one were to look for an analogy to relate to " The Art of Governance," it should perhaps be perceived as a jewel in it's raw state. How to be cut. How facetted: And how polished. In other words, countries who ostensibly classify themselves as "DEMOCRACIES" --- yet are so different in concept and conduct, they bear little relationship to each other. In other words, the same "gem"; yet the facets so different that the gem appears to be dissimilar. Yet again, when found to have the same quantity of facets, are either placed differently or in addition not polished to the same extent.

The facets of a Democracy are so varied and it's "applications" even more so, that it would be impossible to remark on them all within the compass of an article designed to be of reasonable length. So we are going to confine ourselves to dealing with a few of these facets in as varied a format as one can. In other words to formulate something that is common to most democracies, yet practiced quite differently. It can perhaps be described as looking for a manner in which to create the finest gem from the same raw material.

Perhaps the best place to start is at "the top," at Central Government. There are of course countries that have just one tier of government, while others have several layers at the "State" or "Provincial" level. Yet even those that have only centralized government, do have lower tiers at the municipal or rural and regional level. Their functions may be different, yet they do participate in providing some "facet" of governance.

Size of "Country" is certainly relevant to the quality of governance. We talk primarily of geographic size rather than one of population, although that too has equal relevance. The more spread the population geographically from the "seat of government, "the less their feeling of relevance to each other. A feeling of "neglect" from those who live "on the outer rim" as it were. A case of out of sight --- out of mind! This feeling is universal, wherever the powers of governance are centralized. And the more "centralized" that maintenance of the "power to govern," the higher that feeling of impotence by the general population. The problem lies primarily within "THE CONSTITUTION." For what "is written within the Constitution" is felt to be inviolate. Not to be meddled with : Etched in stone.

Not so the American Constitution : For down the years there have been a number of changes to their constitution, aptly called the "First Amendment" ; the "Second Amendment" etc. These were primarily enacted to nullify the conflict of certain clauses that impinged upon an individuals "Rights" enshrined in the "Bill of Rights" or sometimes called a "Charter of Rights."

The expression ----"POWER CORRUPTS" is meant to define the "corruption - of - the - spirit" rather than that of lawlessness. The problem exists in the fact that once powers have been given, it is no easy task to take these away. To delegate one's powers elsewhere. Why politicians suffer this malaise is beyond human understanding. Perfectly "normal" people, elected to "office" suddenly suffer a "metamorphosis" into "something or someone" else. Like having been poured into a mould. Cloned maybe. Someone switching their chromosomes.

Party politics. Conforming to a given criteria. Which alters of course at each election, depending upon the baying of the hounds at that moment in time. However this is not a discourse on politics and "parties." Merely an effort to determine that "corruption of the spirit " within the political spectrum.

The devolution of power. That is the true democracy. The Gem Stone! Government of the people : For the People : By the People ! What one might term "the trickle - down effect." The effective, or possibly the most efficient use of taxed "dollars" surely defines the strata of "governance" required to do so. In other words, the closer one gets to the "sight" where these funds are required, the more certain we may be that these are being wisely spent. For this to take place, these funds have to be placed into the hands of those who are best qualified to make that final decision.

To determine this, let us for a moment examine Municipal function. The collection of municipal taxes are undertaken by the Authority best served to utilize these funds. They determine what is required ---and where spent. Certainly far better an understanding than even that of the next higher levels, be they "Regional" or even "Provincial." While this is not universally practiced, even the functions of National or Provincial "Utilities" should stop at the "Municipal boundary." In other words the purchase of utilities such as power and water should be purchased by the "municipality" at a "wholesale" or "bulk" price, and distributed and re - sold to it's citizens. The distributive and maintenance costs, plus a profit mark - up would remain within the purview of the municipal authority. That would apply to storm water and sewerage disposal. However where this is to be a major cost undertaking, these can be paid for and shared on a regional basis by a number of municipalities.

While discussing the Municipal level of government, some countries allow their municipalities to issue bonds in order to raise funds for major undertakings. In the United States this is not only widely practiced, but the interest rate income derived from these fund are "tax free" in the hands of those who have subscribed to these, as an added inducement to participate. Provided there is an enactment of laws restricting the "debt level" at which this shall prevail, we see this as a desirable method of providing services to citizens. In other words, that debt servicing ( repayment of capital and interest ) be no more than say 10 % of annual budgeted income. Or something of a similar nature.

One could go even further, and envisage the possibility that these bonds be at "regional level" and the use and repayment undertaken on a proportional basis and guaranteed proportionally on the basis of municipal income. This system ensures that the proceeds are raised and spent where needed, and not at the whim of provincially perceived bias or favour. Provincial Debt load is thus lessened and spread. Rural requirement and that of smaller communities can thus be serviced at "Provincial debt" level.

Which takes us to the Provincial level. We will deal with the way Central or "Federal" governments deal with the "State" or "provincial" or "County" levels of government when discussing the overall concept of the devolution of power, or said another way ---- of "power sharing." When it comes down to the honest sharing or apportionment of Nationally or Federally collected taxes, there is the perception of "favour" A disproportion of allocation. Whether justified or not ---- is not material. But it does exist. And we will get back to that at a later stage again.

At the Provincial level, the same elements of the unfair allocation of income derived from provincial tax sources apply as well. There is always that element of "cronyism." Favouritism perhaps. Not only does it apply on a regional basis, but it is felt as well within the allocation of resources within the funds depicted within the Annual Budget.

First of all, it is called "The Annual Budget" and it should confine itself to the expected income for the coming year, based on the present or past year's income figures, and should relate to the proposed apportionment of expenditures for the 12 months "to come." The nonsensical statement that "such - and - such" an amount will be spent over the next three years for a particular budgetary item, and "so much" spread over "so many years" on another, is both meaningless and pointless. It is difficult enough to anticipate both income and expenditure requirements within one year with any degree of accuracy and relevance, not to compound issues by attempting to determine factors over an extended period of time.

BUDGETS :

One cannot be "all things to all people." While it may be understood that during election periods, promises are made that either cannot or will not be implemented for whatever reason, they should be answerable to the electorate at some stage. Certainly not for that extended period until the next election. In order to obviate or mitigate this occurrence, there is an element of budgetary discipline, that can be enacted. It applies equally well at whatever tier of governance is practiced. Wherever Annual Budgets apply. The greatest problem that arises from budgets, is not so much that of anticipating the expected income, as it is that of deciding how much and where each expenditure shall take place. The allocation of funds. And it is in this area that the expression of "you cannot be all things to all people" applies.

The annual expected income, and it's perhaps major or minor growth or lack of growth in income, should make it self - evident that it cannot be wisely allocated. There are so many areas to where this annual income is to be spent, that it becomes impossible to make tangible or wise decisions as to their allocation in the present methods used for the disbursement of income derived from taxation. At whatever level. The logical alternative is to allow for each "sector" of the budget ---- or each sector of society, to enjoy a tangible increase in expenditures. Viewed dispassionately, THERE IS NEVER ENOUGH MONEY to satisfy requirement.

Budgets should be broken into perhaps four major segments. This of course is based on the understanding that these segments are under the control of that particular tier of government. So let us examine some possibilities. We are presuming that Health : Education and Social Services are the three major segments, and all else is classified as "The Rest." For this exercise, this is to be a Provincial Budget.

The expected income is defined as being say $ 30 Billion. From this figure, 2.5 0 % is deducted to go into "an equalization fund." This leaves $ 29.25 billion for disbursement, as $750 million goes into the equalization fund. Now let us presume that the following reflects a fair apportionment of taxed income.

To Health :                  35 % of the balance of the income                 ----- which equates to $ 10. 2375 Billion

To Education :             27.5 %                                                        ----- which equates to $ 8.04375 Billion

To Social Services :     15 %                                                           ----- which equates to $ 4.3875 Billion

The Rest :                   22.5 %                                                        ----- which equates to $ 6.58125 Billion

The Equalization fund should grow to at least 5% of anticipated revenues, ( $ 1.5 Billion ), or if 10% is thought to be more relevant, ( $3 Billion ) and from that point should only be "topped - up" as and when required. In other words, in "lean years" money is "borrowed" from the fund as and when required, and replaced with the sum borrowed when income growth is apparent.

At this point it should be stated that each "sector" has a "bite of the Cherry" in turn. In other words, every 4th. year. If the above budget were stated as the "basic relationship" for what was "last year", ( say in 2001) then if the expected growth in the economy in the year 2002 is expected to be 1.5 % then the estimated income would be $ 30.045. That is ---- $450 million. The whole of that would be allocated to "Health", on the understanding that that extra amount would have to last them for four years; the year received, plus another three years until the next time that they could expect any budgetary increases. The following year the expected income growth would be allocated to "Education." Any shortfalls would be drawn down from the equalization fund.

In other words, a meaningful increase is available, instead of trying to apportion the expected $ 450 million over a myriad entities of budget requirements, to the total dissatisfaction of all concerned. As economic growth or contraction takes place at different variances, the equalization fund draw down is used to compensate for these factors.

Control and Disbursement :

Health : The people who best know their individual requirements at the "Hospital Level," are those AT THE HOSPITAL ---- and not some bureaucrat situated elsewhere. While it would be a cumbersome system to work with each hospital individually, it is certainly feasible to do so on a regional basis. Thus an allocation of funds allocated on a regional basis, then applied individually as required, is certainly a far better system than attempting to deal with it from a central location. Where savings are required to be made, it is certainly far easier to attempt this when funds are not under constraint, than whether it is asked to be done when being squeezed for funds to cover merely the basic requirements. Thus shortages of personnel, or wage agreements could only be addressed once every four years as well.

Where a National Health Scheme is in operation, there should be a further breakdown of the apportionment of funds in order to obviate sectional friction. In other words one takes the existing costs of each segment as the basis in which these funds shall be allocated. For example, "Health" can be broken down into say the following cost segments.

Hospitalization --- Nursing costs ---- Doctors remuneration ---- Drug costs. There could be others. However were the costs of these segments to be defined, then the disbursement of funds can be made with hopefully less friction and animosity. Let us for a moment presume that each of those segments has costs similar to what is now stated. Hospital costs are say 65%. Doctors remuneration perhaps 13 %. Nurses costs are say 9.6%. Drug costs at say 8.4% and outside pathology and ancillary costs the remaining 4%. So if we look back at the original "Health" budget figure of $ 10.2375 Billion, the apportionment of this total can be stated. To this we would then add the budgeted extra allocation for that year of the expected $450 million. Each would then get either an allocation equal to their percentage costs, or where new differentials are required at that particular moment in time, their share participation could be altered, in order to comply with the circumstance that needed attention. Government then says to the Doctors : " this is what you are entitled to IN TOTAL --- now YOU DECIDE how this is to be apportioned among you!! The nursing establishment are given the same message, with the added announcement that so "many more hundreds of extra nurses are required", and that these have to figure within their cost parameters. The Hospitals in turn decide what their particular requirements are in relation to Admin costs, Diagnostic Machine requirements and each and every other requirement. One think one starts to get the general idea. As a matter - of - fact, as far as drug costs go, the incentive then exists, for Doctors to curtail unnecessary expensive drug prescriptions, so that there be extra money available for additional remuneration to themselves next time around. However, this is not to say that in four years time the distributive proportions allocated to each, could be altered in order that one sector have a greater allocation to meet specific needs.

Education : A similar system to that envisaged for "Health" would apply equally as well in dealing with education.

However there is the possibility that a slightly different scenario could be explored, which would perhaps further divide responsibility. And that is the participation of Municipalities within the mix. After all, hospitals and schools are mainly situated in villages, towns and cities. It would not be out of place to contemplate Municipal taxation as being brought - to - bear to cover specific entities of the costs incurred in providing for both Health and Education.

One of the primary problems with taxation, is the" perception of relevance." So before proceeding with the factors of Social Services and "The Rest," it may be a good idea to discuss "taxation" at this stage.

Taxation :

While there may be an element of truth in the saying "that nobody likes taxation," yet everyone realizes the necessity for taxation By the same token, in order for the acceptance of taxation, one has to be able to understand "it's relevance" in order to account for acceptance. One has to see where it is being spent. Commitment to specifics is what is needed in order to establish relevance.

In countries where HEALTH is paid for by means of private insurance, the policy spells out in great detail, what is covered for payment. In other words "you pays for what you gets," as the saying goes. For extended services or greater cost expenditures, the monthly or annual charge varies. The relevance of cost to possible expenditure is established. We are going to use a "dollar currency" for convenience, but it applies anywhere. Where costs increases occur, premiums rise. The Insurance Company does not allocate costs proportionally. As costs continually vary, both in the use of the total resources of the fund, or in only specific areas, this is reflected merely as a change in "overall cost" ---- and passed on to the insured as a new increase in monthly premiums.

Where some kind of National Health schemes exist in certain countries, the coverage may be similarly dealt with by means of specific taxation, or as part of globular annual taxes. As an example, affordable health coverage in the United States can be purchased by say a monthly cost of $300 or more per person through Insurance Companies, which may cover the major costs incurred in covering expected health costs. Whereas in Canada, where a National Health Scheme exists, an entire family is charged say $70 per month, with the balance required to cover health costs, coming out of "general revenues" via annual taxation. Thus in the American system, when medical costs increase ---medical contributions increase, be they covered by Insurance or other methodology. Whereas in Canada, the approximately $70 monthly family charge never alters, but general taxation increases to cover additional or rising costs.

While a National Health Scheme is always mooted to be more desirable, as it ostensibly covers everyone equally, there is no guarantee that it does, and that it is more efficient or more cost effective. However, what is lacking in the Canadian type scheme is relevance; or more specifically "the perception of relevance." For example, were nursing wages to increase, then THAT PROPORTION of medical costs that relates to "nursing costs" should increase : And this should be reflected accordingly. In other words, when nurses wages increase --- nurses contributions to the medical scheme increases at the same "rate cost" as do that of all other tax payers. First of all, if total monthly Health costs are determined to average $300 per family taxpayer, then that should be the monthly contribution, and if nursing costs represent say 10% of the cost ( $30 ), any increases to the nurses should have relevance to that cost. As an example, were their wages to have been increased by 10%, then that would represent a $3 percentage of their $30 proportional total costs of the Health Scheme. As a result $3 per month should be added to the monthly payment made by each contributor.

To clarify this, although it is always stated that Health charges are equally born by taxpayers in Canada, because the monthly family charge is $70, in reality it is a sliding scale of charges born from general revenue, as the bulk of the costs of the scheme is way above that $70 contribution. In other words, the costs of paying for health is actually based on total tax payments derived from one's income, so the higher earners are in reality contributing more than the lower wage earners. Because of this, that $70 charge is an anachronism, which should be done away with, and monthly charges should be based on proportional income, as is general taxation.

For taxation to be acceptable --- it has to have relevance. As far as the costs of Education is concerned, the same criteria should be applied as in Health. Where Teachers wage costs rise, then as a proportional cost, so too are contributions increased, so that the teachers realize that their own contributions to their own wage increases are reflected directly.

If taxation derived from gasoline taxation is applied to the building and maintenance of roads and highways and perhaps as well on supplementing local mass- transit costs, then any increase costs which occur in that area, should result in an increase in taxation on the gasoline tax charge. General revenue increases, which never depicts relevance , should only be resorted to " as a last resort."

While we state the importance of "relevance," we do not expect this to be taken to "Nth Degree." However it is important that taxation be perceived as being applied where required, and intelligently seen to be spent in the area allocated.

Where Centralized Government collects the greater proportion of taxation and allocates a part of these to be dealt with by "Provinces" or "States", there is always the perception of favouritism or neglect. That portion of Federal Taxes that are disbursed to lower tiers of government, should have in the first place been collected by those lower tiers --- and not Federally. Where smaller or economically weaker Provinces or States require additional revenue, Central Government should have, (as is the case of Provinces or States) an Equalization Fund, to which all Provinces or States contribute towards from THEIR TAXATION, based on their variances of tax income. In other words the economically stronger entities contribute towards the weaker or less populated States or provinces.

The ideal form of governance and taxation is the allocation of "Power Function." However, the problem is to get Centralized Government to relinquish power. Essentially speaking, Central Government should concern itself with only National and International function, and delegate all else. The diplomatic Service : International Trade and International Treaties : Armed Services and domestic and foreign "Intelligence Services": The higher functions of Jurisprudence and Law Enforcement. Anything that requires National or International "Consensus." The control of the Currency and the Central Bank and the Treasury. All else should devolve to lower tiers of government with the consequent powers of taxation.

THE RIGHT TO KNOW :

While taxes are paid to government --- at whatever tier, the "right - -to - know" remains the privilege of taxpayers. They have every right to know ---- and to question expenditures. Other than for "security reasons", this information should never be withheld. Furthermore the right to criticize is fundamental, where it is seen as wastefully or irresponsibly spent.

Federal ( or Central Government ) Responsibility :

Putting aside the processing of Parliamentary Bills and the consequent enactment of Law, and the conduct of all the departments mentioned in the previous paragraph : There is an even greater responsibility, which is to nurture and protect the value of The Currency

If one were to look for a KEYSTONE or a FULCRUM that binds an economy, it is it's CURRENCY. Without a valid and viable currency, no Economy is " Worth A Damn !" No economy can survive without a valid currency. Of All THE JEWELS IN THE CROWN--- nothing is more priceless than THE CURRENCY.

Contrary to popular thought, a well defined value to a currency, needs never to be defended. There is of course --- a proviso. And that is ---- that it be taken from the realm of "Market Forces."

To enable this to be done, the Central Bank has to be defined as the only body that can buy back and sell the currency. This is PARAMOUNT!! All monetary transactions which requires the" movement" of the currency out of and back into the country, should be under the direct control of the Central Bank. The domestic Currency in fact, is never "bought" or "sold." it is merely "exchanged" at a defined fixed rate. And that FIXED RATE is defined by the CENTRAL BANK ---- and not "market forces."

What "right" has either an individual, a bank, or a consortium of individuals, banks or financial institutions, to wager "an assault" on any particular country's currency. In actual fact, currencies "should never be sold" but merely "exchanged" for other currencies --- for DEFINED LEGITIMATE PURPOSE. The settlement of trade debt. Financial Debt borrowing. Interest or Dividend payments on Investments made. Travel related expenditures, both incoming and outgoing.

"Globalization" can never be successful while one allows the Unrestricted Flow of Currencies that do not have defined fixed values. The actual free flow of currencies are the basic reason for the volatility of currency values. As one currency flees one country for another , it destabilizes the economy from which it flees.--- and unnecessarily inflates the value of the currency it finds a haven in. Not only this, but the economy which is losing its currency to another is further weakened in both the loss of currency in circulation, but has the added problem in having to "re-purchase" or exchange badly needed Foreign Currency in order to repatriate its own currency. In other words it has to expend Currency from it's reserves, for invalid reasons, which has no relevance to legitimate trade practices or investment.

There are innumerable reasons given for the deterioration in the value of a currency. Some valid ; others not so. Besides which, even those valid reasons are only partially contributory in nature. Many things contribute towards a loss in "value." As this aspect has been covered elsewhere, it will not be pursued at this stage. What concerns us here, is the assault on any currency for reasons that have little to do with the conduct of the domestic economy of a country.

Perhaps the best method of defining the "worth" of a currency, is to establish it's Purchasing Power Parity ( PPP ), to that of another currency. In reality this merely establishes worth between two or more currencies; that is exchange rates. The wider the comparison of subject matter, the closer one gets to the reality of "worth differential." Before a currency can be deemed to be "losing value," it's domestic purchasing value has to have deteriorated. THIS IS PARAMOUNT. That is why one has to see to it that OUTSIDE FORCES are not allowed to influence the domestic purchasing power of a currency. One cannot obviate "imported inflation." The rising costs of imported goods. However, invariably the percentage of essential daily requirement of "imported" as against "local" does not exert that much influence on "the cost of living." Domestic interest rates, wage increases and other factors largely compensate for these factors. Here we are dealing with the conduct of domestic consumption spending, and not the disparity between imports and exports.

While "Globalization" and International Trade demands the free flow of Currencies for purposes such as Trade debt; repayment of International debt and interest; International Investment and corresponding dividend payments, there is nothing to stop any government defining where, when and how it's domestic currency can be utilized by it's citizens. One is not talking here of imposing rigid currency control, but merely sufficient criteria to inhibit volume outflows for the purchase of foreign currencies, or foreign investment little related to Trade or Debt. In other words protecting outflows, but offering no impediment to the inflow of foreign funds.

Which brings us to ---INTEREST RATES.

INTEREST RATES : Here we enter a domain of controversy. The use of interest rates by RESERVE BANKS, in an effort to control consumption flows, can effectively enhance or diminish the value of the currency. A strong currency requires valid interest rates in order to defend it's value. While lowering interest rates in order to enhance the consumption of goods and services, it at the same time effectively diminishes the PURCHASING POWER of the currency. Because "money" is "cheaper" to borrow, it creates additional debt and at the same time diminishes the income derived from savings. The lower the return on investment, the greater the sum required to maintain "income" --- and "value." Thus the lower interest rates drop, the more that money has to be saved ---- in order to derive the same return on the investment. And thus money which was needed to go into consumption spending, often is not spent --- but saved.

At the same time that interest rates drop, foreign investment tends to flee the scene, which triggers a "run" on the currency as foreign funds are required to exchange into the foreign currencies required. This pressure on funds leaving for better rates elsewhere, forces the value to drop, and in the end becomes "self - fuelling" as the lower the value falls, the greater the momentum to flee. However when attractive and valid interest rates are maintained, the opposite effect is created. Domestic currency remains within the country, invested locally, while at the same time foreign investment is attracted to local investments. NOTHING ATTRACTS FOREIGN INVESTMENT BETTER ----THAN A STRONG STABLE CURRENCY AND EXCELLENT INTEREST RATES.

JURISPRUDENCE :

Apart from crimes of passion and commercial crime, most other crime starts at a tender age of the perpetrator. In other words at the level of "juvenile crime." Thus whether it be for reasons of re - habilitation or retribution, sentencing and the types and lengths of incarceration or other exactment or enactment of punishment, are of extreme importance to society. A "slap - on - the - wrist" ----- is ----- A SLAP IN THE FACE to society. Why should the 98 % of law - abiding society be treated with less respect than the 2 % of the criminal element of society. Protection from that 2 % is the inalienable right of the rest of the citizens of any country.

ALL RIGHTS ARE EQUAL ------and it behoves Government to see to it that adequate protection from criminal elements be their primary concern when punishment is metered out, especially when criminality becomes evident at the juvenile stage.

Social Responsibility :

Over the years the movement of "looking after the poor " or "looking after the less fortunate" has shifted from the private sector to Government. Thus where previously this was paid for by means of private contributions or donation, has ended up to a large extent as being paid for from tax monies. While "charity" is basic to all human emotion, like all else ---- it cannot be limitless. No matter how willing to give : No matter how much the concern, it is impossible to provide limitless funds to the needy or less fortunate members of society, without impinging on the requirements of all other elements that have to be funded from tax monies. Because this is so, Government has to decide how wisely these funds are to be allocated, and inevitably there will always be dissatisfaction in how this is accomplished.

However, having said that, there are elements that can be addressed which not only spreads the available funds, but at the same time is helpful to society in general as perhaps "recompense" for the assistance given. We speak of WORKFARE in place of WELFARE. Where there is the ability to contribute work to society to compensate for the monetary assistance given, we see this as an admirable "quid - pro -quo."

It certainly adds dignity to the receipt of assistance. There is an additional factor which bears examination, and that is where additional labour is required, but there are insufficient funds available to pay for these. Here the recipients of welfare could supply that labour shortage without additional cost to society.

While on the subject of social responsibility ( social services ), there is another element that perhaps should be considered. This relates to either tax incentives ---- or allowing specific tax deductions to compensate for larger families. In other words, the more children one has ----the less tax one pays. What seems to have been lost sight of, is the greater burden placed on the tax -paying public when these concessions are in operation. The larger the family, the greater the provision that has to be made to educate, provide health care, and eventually create the jobs required for their future. Surely it would be more relevant to limit these tax perks to a total of say three or four children, and all in excess of that figure would require a higher tax contribution to cover the additional costs to the State.

Limiting Tax Expenditure :

Where wages and salaries are paid via tax income, there is often a great deal of friction generated between the "government in power" at whatever tier of government, and those who are paid from the income derived from taxation. This is especially so, when labor unions and similar institutions bargain on behalf of their members. There is very little that is embodied within Labor Law, that cannot be legislated into "legislative law." In other words, type of employment, remuneration, hours to be worked and much else can become embodied into law without it having to become "a bone of contention". In other words clerical staff can be graded into specific grades that relate to years of service, type of occupation, expertise, standard increments and seniority advancement etc. Pension contributions and a myriad of "benefits" and "perks" can be legislated in order to obviate contention and the threat of strike action. So those who enter "government service" can be assured what the future holds for them "down the road" provided that they give satisfactory service while employed. Surely that is tantamount to so - called "job security."

Where National Health exists, Nurses and Doctors and all other professional and ancillary categories can have specified remuneration and terms of service requirements. Surely adjustments can be made without threat of "withholding services " or "strike action" is intimated. This would apply equally to Education. What dismays the general public is the inconvenience to which they are put when these disputes arise.

The facets that are displayed within the jewel of democracy, are many and varied. We have touched upon but a few of these. It is what "government and governance " does to these, that make it into a brilliant and precious gem. It is our hope that this can be accomplished.