Don Robotham, Contributor
THE WRITING is on the wall. The last two weeks have been a baptism of fire. Each of these cases of unrest involved the Police Force in one form or another. In the case of Flankers what appears to be a clear case of police brutality triggered the flare up. Death is always a tragedy. When it occurs in these circumstances it is utterly repugnant.
A DEEPER ROOT
Yet when all is said and done about police murders and our participation in the international drug trade it should be clear that social unrest in Jamaica has a deeper root. Yes, sections of the police are murderous and engage in brutal actions especially when dealing with poor people. But this behaviour is only the spark which lights the fire. We need to act firmly and swiftly to prevent any more sparks before the entire society is engulfed in flames. But the sparks are not the key.
Yes, many of our youth participate in the international drug trade, in acts of extortion and unspeakable violence. But in the end, even this violent criminal behaviour is still a symptom of something else. It is not the key. The key is to realise that we have 'combustible material' lying all about our society especially in our inner cities and in parts of the countryside where people are even poorer. This poverty in a world of plenty is the root cause of our violent crime. It is the reality of increased poverty in Jamaica which is the root point to grasp.
Real poverty at the base of the society has drastically increased in Jamaica in recent years. The immediate cause of this increased poverty has been the anti-inflationary policies pursued by the Government practically continuously over the last 10 years. This is the proximate but not the real cause. The real cause is the uncompetitiveness of the Jamaican economy in the face of global economic forces. It is the documented failure of our education system. Given this real uncompetitiveness, anti-inflationary austerity is inevitable until we reduce our budget deficit and can get our economy to grow significantly.
POVERTY REDUCTION PARADOX
The poverty data produced independently by STATIN show a reduction in poverty in recent years to about 15 per cent below the poverty line. People think that this must be due to manipulations by the Government. But they are wrong. The STATIN data are correct. Poverty in general did decline significantly in Jamaica as a whole after 1998. But it did not decline among the really poor! It did not decline in the inner cities and among the rural poor. It is worth spending some time to understand how the poverty data can show decreases in overall poverty while missing increases in the poverty of the really poor.
The secret of this poverty reduction paradox lies in understanding how poverty is measured (by consumption surveys) and knowing which groups have experienced poverty reduction. The analysis of the recent data by Professor Ashu Handa, formerly of the University of the West Indies and now of the University of North Carolina, conclusively shows the following: The reduction was almost wholly due to movements in the social and economic position of lower sections of the middle class. It had nothing to do with decline in poverty among the really poor. Handa's analysis proved that between 1992 and 1996 this lower middle class on fixed incomes fell into serious poverty. With the reduction in inflation and participation in informal sector activities, probably including illegal activities, they re-emerged from below the poverty line towards 1998. It is the movement in and out of poverty of this group between 1996-2000 which the reduction in poverty data is capturing. That is why nobody believes the STATIN data and the Government's claims.
Much more detailed studies at the community level are needed to get a real handle on the true extent of inner city and rural poverty in Jamaica today. Local studies are urgently needed. It is no good saying "we know" the situation and that "we have enough studies." That is only the case at the general islandwide level. It is not the case at the really detailed community level where people really live.
POLITICAL CRISIS
Such studies only make sense if we have a strategy of poverty reduction. Poverty reduction, if it is to be real and sustained, depends on improvements in the state of the real economy. This will take time. It will require more social peace than we currently have. It does not matter who is the Government. It will take time and social stability. This is why I argue that we have to take strong measures to secure the society now, before the growing social crisis turns into an irreversible political crisis.
If we continue to focus on only the symptoms of our social and economic decay and ignore the real decay itself, there is no doubt that we will end up in a political crisis, probably greater than the one in 1938. Other countries in Latin America are experiencing such crises. Argentina, Ecuador and lately Bolivia. Why should we be different?
Many persons wonder how I can propose a state of emergency as a solution if I attribute social unrest and crime to increased poverty. Surely if one identifies the causes of crime as fundamentally economic one should put forward social and economic solutions and not security ones? But I do not propose a state of emergency as a repressive solution, only as a temporary measure to acquire a breathing space. We need this breathing space to give the economy a chance.
With all due respect to my opponents, I have yet to encounter a serious analysis of whether we can have a state of emergency which preserves human rights and how we could go about ensuring this. All one reads are highly emotional rejections in our inimitable Jamaican manner. Further the question above is based on the assumption that we have hidden away somewhere (by the politicians, by the rich take your pick!) a pot of economic resources which can make a significant dent on urban and rural poverty. If we could only find where this pot of gold is hidden! But this is an illusion.
There is no such pot. The assumption that there is some such pot lies behind many of the well-meaning proposals for poverty and crime reduction which appear regularly in the press. We should open more factories, say some. Others say 'create jobs'. But factories require investment, investment requires social stability and profit, and profit requires global competitiveness in the marketplace. The reality is that we have no such global competitiveness today, outside of tourism, bauxite-alumina and a few well-known firms. We don't have social stability either.
Many politicians are corrupt but it is not the Government who has stolen the money which would otherwise been in this pot. It is not the rich either, although some rich are also corrupt. We have to work hard to develop the resources to put in our pot. This process of development will take time and stability. If the Jamaica Labour Party is in power, it will take time and stability. If Portia is the Prime Minister, it will still take time and stability. We cannot continue with the increasing violent crime rate and social unrest if we are to secure this investment. That is why we need an emergency. Not for repression but to buy some temporary stability.
Invaluable discussions of the constitutionality of a state of emergency have recently appeared in this newspaper. It would be foolish and arrogant indeed to dismiss such careful analyses. However, in the end, such a legal analysis misses the point. The point is not whether our current state of crisis meets the constitutional definition of a state of emergency, important as that question is. The question is what is the real state of our society today, irrespective of what legal definitions may say. I believe that even those who oppose the declaration of a state of emergency would concede that we are indeed in a state of extreme crisis in Jamaica. Call it what you will: crisis or emergency. It is the really crumbling state of our social order which is the issue, not the constitutional definitions.
I believe that the vast majority of Jamaicans of all walks of life do not want our social order to collapse. I do not believe that persons who strongly disagree with some of my views desire to come to power on the basis of a political crisis. Such a crisis would put the JLP in an impossible position and throw the society into possibly irreversible chaos. It would make the present unrest look like a picnic.
But in fact, a careful analysis of our recent social unrest and similar recent cases in Latin America shows that we are indeed in danger of moving from social to political crisis. The danger here is not so much evil intent. It is misjudgement, especially by junior politicians whose reach exceeds their grasp. Political crises steal up on a society like the proverbial thief in the night. Those who have ears, let them hear.
Don Robotham is an anthropologist specialising in development issues in Africa and the Caribbean.
