Having Churches Credit Union (CCU) manage a portion of the $20-million Constituency Development Fund (CDF) allocated to a St Andrew constituency through a revolving business loan scheme is a novel idea.

If it works, the plan could settle the intermittent squabbles among politicians over allocation and use of the money.

According to Mr Basil Naar, the CCU general manager, the credit union has, with the blessings of Jamaica House, been in quiet discussions with the St Andrew member of Parliament and the loan programme should be implemented shortly.

“We have the programme outline waiting to sign off on it,” Mr Naar was quoted in the Daily Observer two Wednesdays ago. “It is about 90-odd per cent complete in gestation. If it works, it is something we would want to roll out to the rest of Jamaica.”

Under the plan, the MP will relinquish $6 million of his CDF money and allow the credit union to disburse loans for commercially viable projects based on set standards, including the ability of the borrower to repay.

It is our hope that this experiment is successful, for we have long held the view that the CDF — formerly known as the Social and Economic Support Programme (SESP) — is a nice title for what is really a political pork barrel from which Parliamentarians gleefully distribute scarce resources to their supporters in exchange for security of tenure.

Our view is that any project being implemented under the CDF should not be routed through politicians, despite their claim that they are more in tune with the community needs and are in a better position to respond quickly to constituents, particularly in emergencies.

Our position is informed by knowledge — some of it volunteered by politicians themselves — of the corruption that besets this programme, particularly in the run-up to elections. In fact, the opportunities the CDF presents for abuse and political victimisation are at the root of the quarrels we have seen among politicians over allocation.

Therefore, taking the distribution of the funds out of their hands, perhaps by using the Churches Credit Union model, is likely to ensure that people with genuine needs, rather than the political faithful, benefit.

There may have been changes in the administration of the CDF but the negative perception remains the same, and, as we all know, perception is often stronger than reality.

We acknowledge, of course, that there are bad debt risks with this formula, but the CCU, being experienced financiers with a good track record, will no doubt put in place the necessary systems to ensure that borrowers meet their obligation.

Another possible benefit of this programme is that communities stand to gain from the transformation of residents. For, as Mr Naar quite rightly pointed out: “Communities change more out of social re-engineering than anything else. If people live in a constituency and get wealthy they will take care of it.”

Mr Naar has said that the loan repayment would attract a low interest rate and the funds collected from borrowers would be on-lent to other residents. What he now needs to tells us is how low that interest rate will be. He should also outline the mechanics of the programme in clear and simple terms in order to accommodate those who would seek to access it.

And, if this experiment works, the Government should not be afraid to adopt the formula for all constituencies, as it would certainly lend transparency and accountability to a system that, in its present form, is too open to abuse and skulduggery.