Ian Boyne, Contributor
NONE OF the persons who have offered themselves to replace Edward Seaga and P.J. Patterson has shown a comprehensive grasp of the extent and depth of the socio-economic and cultural crisis faced by this country, nor has any (as yet) articulated a vision which properly addresses it.
Now that the University of the West has appropriately and proactively given them a forum to expound their vision and to expose their ideas to the Jamaican people, let me raise what I see as some critical issues which the post-Seaga, post-Patterson generation of political leaders needs to address. The aspirants to political power are mouthing some key phrases and sounding some predictable notes, but none of them has gripped me with an acute sense that he or she profoundly grasps what Jamaica needs now.
All pay homage to the virtue of building the economy, attracting investments and creating jobs. All vow to creatively tackle crime, violence and corruption, wage a war against tribalism and build national unity. Of course, all of them stress education, and though not everyone says it explicitly, we can throw in health, the environment, etc. They are saying the right things, but one still doesn't get the overarching vision, the controlling philosophy, and the ideological centre, apart from vague phrases about building a new Jamaica, creating an inclusive society and so on.
Bruce Golding, in an otherwise excellent, statesmanlike and significant speech, failed to articulate an overriding moral vision for the nation. Neither Omar Davies nor Peter Phillips did in their 'soft' launches. Pearnel Charles talked about his commitment to the poor and marginalised in his hard landing, but that is not what one means by an overarching vision. First, let's deal with the economic challenges which face the country.
GLOBALISATION AND JAMAICA
None of the would-be prime ministers has given the Jamaican people any serious appreciation of the impact that globalisation has, and will continue to have, on their standard of living, and how small is the room to manoeuvre economically. Of course, that is not in their interest, for each wants to show what a significant difference he or she will make to our lives. None wants to honestly tell us that it is the decisions taken in Washington, New York, Geneva, Brussels, and Beijing which are the most decisive, not those taken at Jamaica House or in Parliament. It is not in their interest to show us the depth of the marginalisation of politics, particularly the politics of small developing states like Jamaica. They have to continue to perpetuate the myth that if they are elected they can bring the kingdom of God to earth.
No, I am not making the absurd point that it does not matter which party or person we elect because our future is totally out of our hands. Indeed, precisely because our room to manoeuvre is so constricted we have to make sure that the best person is chosen to give us the best and most creative results.
But it is time the politicians stop lying to and fooling the people by giving the impression that they can give them jobs, adequate health care, security by the drop of a hat. Take the sugar industry which affects the lives of multiple thousands of persons in Jamaica. No matter which political leader is elected, the key decisions affecting the lives of those persons and the entire Jamaica are finally in the capitals of Europe. The calibre of the negotiators we have is far more important than who our political leaders are!
Your sugar industry can be wiped out as well as your banana industry simply because of external factors. The apparel industry in Jamaica was devastated, not because of the mismanagement of the PNP, but because of the global repositioning of the industry and the NAFTA agreement with Mexico. What the United States does with its interest rates and how it decides to deal with its currency and its mounting fiscal deficits will have a far greater effect on our economy than whom we put in the finance ministry.
What happens in global capital markets will influence our economic indicators in a way that the Bank of Jamaica cannot, whether it is independent or not. It is time the politicians tell the people the truth about the constraints which the global economy and the might of the Bretton Woods institutions place upon us. It, of course, will be harder for Bruce Golding to tell us the truth on these matters for it is in his interest to convince Jam-aicans that it is the wickedness and corruption of the Patterson government why people are feeling the pinch, and why the economy is not creating enough jobs. There are many Jamaicans who sincerely believe that a JLP gov-ernment would result in investors flooding into Jamaica, creating multiple thousands of high-paying jobs and causing money to start 'run like Dunn's River'.
RECORD INVESTMENTS
Few realise that the PNP government over the last few years has attracted record foreign investments which have outstripped the JLP's record of the 1960s and 1980s, yet relatively few jobs have been created. The problem is not attracting investments per se but the jobless growth and capital and knowledge-intensive investment
phenomenon of 21st century capitalism. The IMF itself in its latest report on Jamaica mentions the buoyant investments which are projected over the next few years.
Commentators did not tell the Jamaican people that the latest IMF report praised the Jamaican Government, pointing out that "substantial progress had already been achieved on the stabilisation front," citing a number of positive indicators. Yet, if the economy is doing relatively well, by even the IMF's admission, why so many people are feeling 'so bad'? Could it be that the neoliberal capitalist system itself is unable to adequately provide for the mass of the people? No one is asking that.
EDUCATED CLASSES
It is the common understanding in Jamaica, even among the educated classes, that it is just Jamaica, Guyana and Haiti in this region which are having serious economic problems and that the rest of the Caribbean is doing well because they are better managed and have better governments. The JLP has done much to spread this myth and influential but under-read people in the media have gleefully disseminated this ignorance.
In an IMF working paper published in late February, titled Stablilisation Debt, and Fiscal Policy in the Caribbean Ratna Sahay, says, "The majority of Caribbean countries are characterised by high public debt." Although there are differences in performance across countries, a common feature of all countries in the last five years has been the deterioration in fiscal positions. Today 14 of the 15 Caribbean countries are among the 30 most indebted emerging market countries in the world.
You would never know that from listening to Edward Seaga, Audley Shaw and Bruce Golding. You would think only Jamaica has a high public debt among her Caribbean neighbours. The question we must start asking ourselves is what possibility for economic emancipation do we have under the current global economic order. The external environment is often far more decisive than the internal environment, and the politicians, including those in the PNP, are not fully explaining that to the people for they need to anoint themselves as the new Messiahs replacing Seaga and Patterson.
FIXED EXCHANGE RATE
Says the IMF paper: "Given the large vulnerabilities emanating from exogenous shocks in the region and the high debt, the probability of financial crises has arisen."
But if you listen to Shaw and the JLP spokespersons, the financial crisis in Jamaica has only arisen because of Omar Davies' mismanagement and the government's corruption and cronyism. And there are many who believe that kind of propaganda.
Incidentally, this same paper explodes Seaga's recommendation made in his last budget presentation for Jamaica to adopt a fixed exchange rate. We were told how much better the other Caribbean countries were doing because they had fixed exchange rates in comparison with our more flexible system. But says Sahay in his paper:
"Contrary to our expectations, average fiscal outcomes in countries with fixed exchange regimes were worse than those with flexible regimes. The average overall fiscal deficit in the 11 countries with fixed exchange rate regimes was higher than in countries with flexible exchange rates and has doubled in recent years."
Note this: "The most alarming development is in countries with fixed exchange rate regimes public debt has risen very sharply from just over 50 per cent of GDP in 1990-1997 period to nearly 90 per cent of GDP in 1998-2003 period." So much for Mr. Seaga's suggestion of the fixed exchange rate as the solution to our economic woes.
What is it about our small island economies in the region which put us among the 30 most indebted in the world? These are the questions to ask rather than give the impression that merely having a new leader who can wave a magic wand, our problems will disappear. Our aspirants to political power are not levelling with the people. They are underestimating the challenges which face our people in order to magnify themselves.
In the March 2005 issue of the leading IMF journal, Finance and Development, there are a number of articles showing how the international economic and trading system affects the prospects of developing countries. In one sobering article 'Preference Erosion: Cause for Alarm' it says: "A subset of countries that is most vulnerable to preference erosion includes those that have debt-to-GDP ratios in excess of 100 per cent Dominica, Jamaica and St Kitts and Nevis. Inflexible exchange rate regimes in some of these countries can introduce further rigidities."
Incidentally, I reject Bruce Golding's call for an independent central bank and the capping of the debt by constitutional amendment. Only a lack of appreciation of what is taking place in the international financial system and the vulnerabilities that imposes on countries like ours would make him follow Seaga in those misguided recommendations. The international system imposes enough rigidities on us to be entangling ourselves further. Besides, the PNP government has been generally fiscally responsible and has earned the commendation of the IMF and the World Bank 'purists by any standard' so there is no need to hobble ourselves by those suggestions.
A fascinating analysis of Jamaica's challenges appears in the scholarly British Marxist journal Capital and Class (spring 2005 issue) titled, 'A Precarious Balance: Neoliberalism, Crisis Management and Social Implosion in Jamaica'.
After noting Prime Minister Patterson's stout defence of liberalisation, the journal notes that "This vigorous commitment to liberalisation stands in stark contrast to the uncertainty about where Jamaica will find competitive niches in an integrating global economy especially, in light of the devastating impact that rising imports are having on domestic agriculture and manufacturing."
But will the next prime minister do any better in miti-gating the negative effects of globalisation?
You can send your comments to ianboyne1@yahoo.com or infocus@gleanerjm.com
