Davies
In Friday's Gleaner, Finance Minister, Dr. Omar Davies, announced his intention to run for the presidency of the governing People's National Party, when Prime Minister P.J Patterson demits office, possibly next year. Today we present excerpts of that interview in which Dr. Davies spoke with The Gleaner's Earl Moxam.
EM: You speak of your 11 years experience in government. What has that experience done for you?
OD: Well, its been wide-ranging. I've been Minister of Finance for almost 11 years because it really goes back to August '93. And it would mean that I've faced the full gamut of challenges, domestically and externally. It certainly is the longest run by any Minister of Finance and I think we've been able to deal with the issues which have arisen. Internation-ally, there are positions we have taken and I think these positions have been recognised. So from that point of view I would think that the experience would have prepared me for the full gamut of issues which might arise in terms of national, social and economic development.
EM: And your service as Member of Parliament?
OD: That's the surprising part, in the sense that, whilst I actually became an MP so that I could legally become Finance Minister, I've found that aspect of the job to be really fascinating. South St. Andrew is difficult, but dealing with some of the challenges we face, even as we speak, that constituency, in a sense, represents a microcosm of some of the challenges we face, nationally.
EM: Back to your stewardship as Finance Minister. How do you respond to those who say you failed to see the gathering storm clouds that signalled the impending collapse of sections of the financial sector in the late 1990s was concerned?
OD: One thing I'm not very good at is trying to defend myself against a host of accusations. But that's a somewhat simplistic view of what happened. The fact is that these financial collapses have occurred in a range of other countries. There are things which, in retrospect, could have been done. For example, the liberalisation of the financial sector without a strengthened regulatory system represented one weakness. We now have that regulatory infrastructure, but I don't know how you defend yourself against dishonest practices, which characterised some of the operations. Now many people will ask why are these people not locked up, but one difficulty is that we just don't have the investigative capability to carry through a prosecution and in some instances memories have faded over time. I'm not suggesting for one moment that we are totally blameless, but these developments were not unique to Jamaica. One of the questions we have to ask is how can you cut down the angle (to use a goalkeeping term) and in a sense that's the best you can do. The important point is how then do you respond to that situation? We took the policy decision to protect all savers deposits and insurance policies etc., and that's where we differed with the multi-lateral institutions, which felt that we really needn't have done that because that's where the tremendous costs have come. In retrospect I still believe we did the right thing. I look at Argentina and other areas where people's lives have been destroyed. Whilst it has contributed significantly to the debt probably about 40 per cent of GDP the fact is that we have saved a society in the process.
EM: At what point in your youth did you become involved in political activities?
OD: Very early! I was a group secretary in my mid-teens and then I became constituency secretary at 21 for what was then Central Clarendon. O.D. Ramtallie was chairman. Now there was a group of persons, including Mr. Ramtallie, who felt that, having come out of university (UWI) I should then be prepared to become the PNP candidate in 1972. But my parents, led by my mother, felt that one should not go into politics as a career; you should do other things and establish yourself first.
EM: Were you genuinely interested in doing it at the time?
OD: No. I was never interested in electoral politics at that time; neither was I in 1993 when I eventually entered the fray. Both Michael Manley in '89 and P.J Patterson in '93 tried to get me to run. But I never saw myself in it. There are some parts of it that still make me uncomfortable.
EM: So did you feel a call to duty when you finally entered the fray in 1993, in the wake of Hugh Small's resignation as Finance Minister?
OD:Yes, a call to duty. The fact is that there were not many people as prepared for it. Being at the Planning Institute of Jamaica would have given me full exposure, both domestically and externally, to the issues which a Minister of Finance and Planning face. It was also a very difficult time for a new government to face such a crisis, and I felt that I could make a difference in that regard. But I didn't know where I would be going to find a seat as Member of Parliament, and as you know, the Constitution demands that, as Finance Minister, you should be a member of the House of Representatives.
EM: Many would have thought that South St. Andrew would have been the last place that you would have gone to!
OD: Yes. Many thought so, including me! I make a confession the first time that I actually went there was to be introduced to the constituency executive. I had always thought that if I ever made that decision it would be somewhere like Clarendon where I would be completely at home.
EM: So how long did it take you to become comfortable with the people and the place?
OD: Well, it's a continuing process, because I'm not comfortable with being a ruler. That constituency has been used to very dominant figures, Tony Spaulding being perhaps the most dominant. So part of our journey has been for them to get used to my approach, without taking anything away from Tony's approach. So, it's been a continuing process and over time I've been able to establish what my priorities are. And some of those initial priorities were strange, not only to South St. Andrew, but to Jamaica. I remember I was ridiculed when I started by saying that I thought the most critical issue was sanitation and I became the butt of jokes because I was building toilets! Now eventually even my own Government has bought into that approach.
EM: You said you didn't want to take anything away from Tony Spaulding's approach but some would suggest that you should strike a difference between your approach and his, because there were things in his approach, which people, to this day, maintain were wrong!
OD: Well, one of the things that you have to learn is that you don't have to alienate people by saying that that was bad. Instead you can say, here is a different way. For example, you will notice, not just in South St. Andrew, that you can go in and build brand new structures and unless there has been significant social change those will become slums as well because nothing has been done about the educational levels and about appreciating the changes being instituted.
EM: Your attendance a few years ago at the funeral service for Willie Haggart Moore (reputed South St. Andrew gang leader) remains a controversial matter. Dr. Peter Phillips, now Minister of National Security, recently expressed regret at having attended the funeral. What do you now say?
OD: Well, from the outset, I wrote, more than either of my two ministerial colleagues (Dr. Phillips and Dr. Karl Blythe) who attended the funeral and I put out my position very clearly why I had gone to the funeral of a constituent. He was a constituent whose background I had checked with the authorities, and they told me that they had no charges against him. I have not had any subsequent evidence that Willy was a wanted criminal.
EM: What about the anecdotal? Have you heard things that would have given you pause?
OD: In my constituency it's quite easy for someone to get near to you, so I've sought, as a matter of course, information as to whether persons are wanted on charges or not. As regards the anecdotal, while there's a natural abhorrence about drug dealing and persons involved in violent crime, we still have to be careful that we do not try and convict people in terms of anecdotal discussions. We would get ourselves into serious trouble if we started repeating everything we heard anecdotally about people. So I'm not ducking the issue but I was very fulsome at the time in explaining why I had gone to the funeral.
EM: And you stand by what you wrote at the time?
OD: Oh yes. I stand by what I wrote, because I didn't write it in anger, because it was something that I had assessed. This was somebody whom I knew. There's a park, which he came to me with suggestions about restoring. You know one of the things about dons is that they seek to establish connections by making contributions. I've never received a cent from any of these people. He was just someone I knew. For me not to have gone to his funeral would have simply been because of my concern about public reaction. Wherever I went in the constituency, Willie was there, like at football matches, and he was not somebody I would have shunned at that stage. And I don't think there is anybody else in politics who has been as blunt about his abhorrence of guns and drugs as I have been.
EM: More and more there is talk about drug involvement, at not just the lower ranks of the political and law enforcement structures, but very high up these organisations. How worried are you about this?
OD: I am very worried about it because you're not just dealing with Jamaica, but several other countries in the region and there is evidence of drug involvement in the Eastern Caribbean where there have been some pretty nasty developments. What you face is a situation in which there are people in command of millions and billions of dollars without any accountability. But one of the things we have discovered is that simply putting another law in place doesn't cure it, which speaks therefore to us, not just having penalties, but enforcing them.
EM: What if you were to have reason to believe that any member of your party had any such connections how would you respond?
OD: Well, I certainly would not make it a personal thing.
EM: But you would be looking to the danger to the country, wouldn't you?
OD: Yes. But I would certainly expect the authorities would take whatever remedial actions are required. In any event, my campaign will not be against anybody. I will instead be asserting why I think I am someone who should be chosen.
EM: Some people see you and Dr. Phillips as two persons coming out of the same academic tradition and that you would have been natural allies rather than rivals for the presidency. Is there a danger of splitting support that would come to either of you and thereby making it easier for another candidate to succeed?
OD: I've heard that reasoning. But it is early days yet and there is no official campaign on at this stage. I'm close to all the persons who have either explicitly or implicitly suggested an interest and we are all, in a sense, I believe, driven by the same basic principles guiding the People's National Party. One thing I would say is that I would not remain neutral if I were not running, myself.
EM: At this point, do you know who you would be supporting, if you were not a candidate, yourself?
OD: No. And I say that genuinely.
EM: On that now infamous 'run wid it' speech (the comments in early 2003 at a constituency conference at Meadowbrook High School regarding not holding back on public expenditures in the lead-up the October 2002 general election) any regrets?
OD: I think I've already indicated regrets. Well, first of all, let me indicate that I was not drunk, so I do not even have that to hold on to! The context is a bit complicated. A young person in the audience, in response to the fact that I had just indicated that things had to be tightened up, asked me why didn't we know before and tighten up before the election. Clearly I shouldn't have given a superficial response. Obviously I should have told him that I would have talked to him afterwards. But was I guilty of irresponsible behaviour as Minister of Finance? No-body has suggested that any of the things that we did was about wasting funds. There are floods, there are capital projects going on, and the question is, could you close down one in order to let another go through. So it wasn't a question of whether we were wasting resources. The question is whether we should have locked off some during that period.
EM: But here was an instance in which you, as someone who, hitherto, whatever your faults, had always appeared to be scrupulous in how you approached your fiscal responsibilities, now seemed to be saying that you were deliberately cavalier because of an election campaign!
OD: I don't know about cavalier. And the truth is, as Maxine (Henry-Wilson) pointed out to me, I was suggesting that I had far more degrees of freedom than I actually had! What I was really saying to the young man was that these were tough decisions as to what to do and what not go through with in the wake of the flood damage and keeping the projects on track. And clearly it was more a suggestion that the decision to proceed had been beneficial to the PNP. Yes, I regret the statement, but then I don't know any political person who has been in public for a while who has not made a speech which he didn't regret.
