By: Mario F Da Costa Pinheiro
Independent Policy Analyst
The urgency for political parties to reach a national consensus on policy goals and objectives and collectively set the country’s development priorities for the next 10 to 20 years is long overdue and cannot be overemphasized. Aligning priorities across political parties amid scarce financial resources is no longer optional, as proceeding without such a strategy is fraught with risks and likely to result in significant policy trade-offs.
Why national consensus at the policy level matters
First, a hard truth – financial resources are limited
Timor-Leste’s development trajectory has been shaped by its oil wealth over the past two decades, with revenues from the Bayu-Undan field funding critical infrastructure, social programs, and savings in the Petroleum Fund. The fund has allowed successive governments to experiment with policies to such an extent that changes now occur almost cyclically, at least in the past two elections as power alternates between major parties with divergent ideological stances on some of the most pressing issues.
Frequent policy shifts along ideological lines are common in many pluralist democracies – Timor-Leste being one by some standards. However, the opportunity costs and trade-offs of choosing one policy over another, or of repealing and replacing policies, every 5 years, tend to be less severe when a country enjoys ample fiscal space or abundant financial resources.
Timor-Leste, however, doesn’t currently have an abundant supply of funds. As of 2024, the Petroleum Fund’s reserve stands at a little over 18 billion. Revenues from the Bayu-Undan oil field have historically contributed, on average, over 50% of the inflows into the Petroleum Fund, financing more than 70% of annual government spending since the field’s development began in early 2000s. With Bayu-Undan’s production now ceased and the Greater Sunrise project still awaiting development (projected within the next 5-10 years), the era of oil-financed budget is, unfortunately, winding down.
These economic realities will inevitably drive the imperatives for change in government spending priorities. Both current and future governments will need to address this impending fiscal challenge in various ways including introducing political, fiscal, and technical reforms. Most crucially, they must develop new spending model. In other words, they must innovate.
Fiscally, the government could reduce expenditure by descaling activities and cutting programs, though the latter isn’t always a popular option politically. Another option is tightening entitlements or eligibility criteria, as seen in recent adjustments to the Bolsa da Mãe policy. Then, there is also the political reform/solution.
The solution is for political parties, both in government and in opposition, to forge a policy-level national consensus. More specifically, a political settlement or agreement between all political parties on a series of policies. Under this strategy, parties would assemble to discuss and define unified strategies for addressing Timor-Leste’s most pressing public policy issues, which are critical to sustainable development. Once these strategies are agreed upon, all parties would sign a binding document committing to their implementation should they win government leadership.
To facilitate discussion and the formulation of unified strategic policies, policymakers from government and opposition should collaborate with academic and policy experts. Together, they could identify optimal policy choices, including tools for each objective, and draft long-term plans (e.g., a 5–10-year strategies for tourism, agriculture, or oil and gas). This approach would enable parties to collectively address key challenges through consistent action while upholding democratic principles of checks and balances.
In turn, the strategy would reduce financial waste caused by constant policy changes after each election, break the current cycle of policy discontinuity, avoid sunk costs from abandoned programs, and set a stronger foundation for long-term development.
Breaking the cycle of policy reset after each election
As noted earlier, policy experimentation along ideological lines will soon become an unaffordable luxury in our fiscally constrained reality. The frequent policy shifts witnessed in recent elections, such as changes to basic education language policy (Tetum vs Portuguese) or the abandonment of economic strategies like the value-chain initiative and other policy initiatives by current or previous governments produced unintended negative consequences.
Frequent revision, for example, in education language can confuse teachers, forcing them to make difficult adjustments that could compromise both teaching and student learning outcomes in the interim. In truth, teachers, healthcare workers, engineers, or other professional staff tend to perform best under a stable policy environment. Constant shifts can also lead to “change fatigue”– fostering inefficiency and disenchantment.
The same logic applies to initiatives like value-chain program and other policies discontinued under this or previous governments. Any policy repeal or reversal wastes funds spent for setting up a new policy unit or training staff while abandoned strategies incur sunk cost and ultimately, risk derailing long-term projects. These costs of discontinuity accumulate over time and represent a failure in our politics to an extent. This is preventable if only political parties would unite around shared priorities through a policy-based consensus.
Note: this analysis does not evaluate the effectiveness of Tetum vs Portuguese as an educational language, nor does it assess the merits of the value-chain initiative. These examples are used solely to illustrate how frequent policy changes can undermine financial stability and long-term policy objectives.
Beyond education and health, sectors critical to Timor-Leste’s sustainable development such as agriculture, oil and gas, and tourism, would equally benefit from policy consistency. Given the looming fiscal constraints, political parties must have a focused approach to spending, channeling scarce financial resources only to the most effective policy options.
Added benefits of a policy-based national consensus
An added benefit of this strategy is that once policy priorities are set, the focus shifts away from ideologically driven or politically charged debates toward implementation. Governments would then be judged solely on results, specifically, how effectively they accomplish agreed-upon policy objectives. The public, in turn, would have a clear benchmark to evaluate whether a government is delivering on its commitments or falling short compared to its predecessors.
In addition, strategic long-term goals would become immune to unnecessary changes including changes in government. Indirectly, this could transform election processes. Political campaigns could focus on which candidates or parties are best equipped to implement pre-agreed national strategies rather than ideology, functioning like a “merit-based” recruitment process.
Public administration would also benefit. A stable policy environment would strengthen public administration by ensuring continuity, improving efficiency, and eliminating disruptions caused by frequent radical changes.
Moreover, a stable policy environment fostered by national consensus would yield significant financial savings. Policy consistency eliminates the need for repeated resource mobilization for new policies while allowing public servants to develop expertise and become more adept and efficient at implementing the policies.
While the proposed strategy appears elegant in theory, critical questions remain about its practical implementation.
How can such a consensus be forged in a young and vibrant democracy like Timor-Leste without undermining the existing check and balance system and democratic accountability? What mechanism will ensure adherence or compliance when power changes hands? Should this operate through existing political structures or does it require a new political mechanism?
If anything, history offers a hint or two. Major political parties have had a kind of national consensus before and this occurred through a power-sharing arrangement. The fundamental question remains: can major parties, now and in the future, commit to such a consensus without resorting to power-sharing to safeguard the check and balance system and democratic accountability? Ultimately, only political actors can provide these answers through their actions.
The issue lingers, nonetheless. Pending development of the Greater Sunrise project, we as a country must maximize opportunities with the limited financial resources that we have. The best path forward is for parties to converge on key policies and focus efforts on shared strategic goals. The opportunity costs and policy trade-offs will simply be too massive to ignore going forward if we don’t break with major policy reset following each election.
In conclusion, this isn’t about eliminating political competition, nor is it seeking to undermine democratic accountability. Rather, it’s about channeling it productively to effectively address the most pressing public policy issues facing the nation. Making elections a contest about who can implement best, not who can promise afresh. (*)
