Errol Hewitt, Contributor
Hewitt
"Look carefully then how you walk! Live purposefully and worthily, not as the unwise and witless, but as sensible, intelligent people, making the most of every opportunity because the days are evil." Ephesians 5 vs 15 -16.
"There has been little fundamental change from the colonial period in the role and organisation of government when Jamaica achieved independence and the basic structure has remained virtually the same since" states the introduction to the January 1992 "Nettleford Report." The Government of Jamaica had established a committee of advisers under the chairmanship of Professor Rex Nettleford to determine "What functions it should undertake and how it should organise itself to deliver the maximum benefit to the population at large, while ensuring that the most vulnerable groups are protected, that the social sectors are supported and economic growth achieved."
The Nettleford Committee boasted an impressive list of
knowledgeable and experienced experts representing a wide professional base and was led by Professor Rex Nettleford, internationally regarded for his creativity and intellect. It included:
Sir Alister McIntyre
Professor Edwin Jones
The Hon. G. Arthur Brown
Dr. Marshall Hall
Rev. Dr. Keith Panton
Mr. O. K. Melhado
Mr. Louis Lindsay
Ms. Dawn Ritch.
JAMAICAN EXPERTISE
It is unlikely that any international institution would appoint such a
talented and experienced team to focus on one country - especially a small developing island, as the marketable fees of consultants of such calibre would be too costly for most
development programmes. Yet, the then Prime Minister was able to call together such a team of largely Jamaicans - the envy of many
developing countries. And the truth is that, considering the impressive accomplishment of proven talent within the country and overseas, Jamaica could well assemble at least five such teams.
Many in a wide range of proficiencies have attained international recognition and it is therefore
accurate to say that our problem as a country is not in a lack of proven expertise or an unwillingness to serve. Further, many of our experts often either agree to a significant discount or sacrificially forego their fees [as the Nettleford Committee did], minimising the cost to the country.
It is remarkable that despite the international demand for their expertise and the Government's history of wasted opportunities, so many of these accomplished Jamaicans are still willing to serve our country.
This history of government 'filing away' viable recommendations continues to threaten development efforts, a point emphasised in the committee's report: "The committee would be remiss if it did not indicate that the majority of the persons consulted expressed concern about the implementation of the committee's recommendations. They hoped it would not be an exercise in futility." The list of shelved reports over the years is substantial - as has been the migration of frustrated professionals to build other countries. All hoped, however, that this opportunity would be seized to at last make a difference for our people - the perennial but to date largely unrewarded wish of most.
We hope to focus subsequently on the substance of the Nettleford Report but for the purpose of this discussion, it is sufficient to say that their recommendations still remain, 14 years later as just that - recommendations.
The Government in its all-embracing wisdom and suggestive of seriousness and urgency, required the assignment completed in 90 days to ensure its inclusion in the Budget, i.e., 90 days literally to produce a detailed development plan, restructure government to deliver it, while ensuring that all the people benefit from this development. Incredible! Surely this must be a very serious commitment by government!
There was then as now, no national framework or detailed sectoral plans on which to base the exercise [but then, there is no really functioning government planning organisation anyhow]. Instead, they are advised to have 'extensive consultation' with varying socio-economic groups throughout the island - i.e. almost starting from scratch.
The committee, recognising "the constraints of time" decided that it would nonetheless do all it possibly could by setting up six committees to deal with all aspects and to submit a "preliminary report as the time constraint did not allow for a detailed study" hoping that short- and medium-term recommendations would be acted on and the long-term framework put in place - inferring that more detailed planning would be required. Surely with such a sound substantive start for a crucially important national programme, work would have been continued!
The background to all this is the fact that in 1991-2, inflation in Jamaica had risen to an astronomical 80.2 per cent and with it all socio-economic indicators. The country was in deep crisis and the Nettleford Committee's assignment was to be a foundation for the recovery. Its creation was, therefore, based on a seemingly genuine search for a development path out of the crisis while laying an underpinning for the future, and buying some time by presenting a picture of hope in the midst of great despair.
SHELVING
Later on in the year, a combination of short-term local initiatives and overseas assistance began to reduce the inflation rate to 40.2 per cent - resulting in the [usual] lessening of urgency in tackling the root cause of the continuing socio-economic problems, i.e., the need for broad-based development, advice for which the Nettleford Committee was created. Despite still being on the edge of an economic and political crisis, the emphasis nonetheless seemed to have shifted to a focus on social programmes to shore up political support. With the focus being elsewhere, the Nettleford Report seemed to have warily retreated to join famous company on the shelf of forgotten reports, e.g. the Wolfe, Orane and Moses reports; all this before a bureaucracy with unseeing eyes and failing memories, conscious only of itself.
If lessons were learnt from these 'forgotten' initiatives, perhaps the 1996 financial crisis could have been avoided - instead of these crises continuing to threaten as a recurring refrain.
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Government had requested the committee's findings "be made available to the group working under the direction of the Minister of the Public Service." Imagine, a recommendation for national development and restructuring the government was to be delivered to a group of civil servants [themselves subject to the report] within a line ministry for more specific processing! This, instead of to Cabinet to obtain the required authority and the guaranteed support of all line ministries! Incredible! Under these circumstances, where could this be going? At best it meant lessened urgency and importance.
In the interim, Michael Manley was succeeded as Prime Minister by P.J. Patterson [March 30, 1992]. Patterson became enthused with the far-reaching implications of the committee's work and instructed that he receive the report. It is understood that at the presentation, the Prime Minister's eyes 'shone in delight'. The original route for receiving the report was positively changed by Patterson but the result remained the same: it found its way onto the shelf of forgotten works. the moral - with governments everywhere increasingly emphasising spin - be not distracted by balloons or shining eyes [promises] and the sound of trumpets, or bells [commitments]. instead, keep your eyes on the ball [actual action].
In the meantime, development continues to be delayed and so are the hopes of the many just barely
surviving.
Surely competent Jamaicans could have prepared an appropriate national plan and designed a proper structure for government geared to accomplish agreed goals, on the basis of which soft funding sought and progress realised to benefit our disadvantaged people. Instead, development by personality continues. Personalities in the constricted inner political circle make unconnected suggestions which are singularly implemented, becoming in effect a 'wineskin patched with old and new skins' which, as with the bible story, places tremendous stress on the system because of its lack of consistency. There is no cohesive national programme, resulting in overlapping, skewing of priorities, inconsistencies and wastage.
Enthusiasm for the concept of the committee's work is said to have accelerated the public sector modernisation programme but as discussed in our May 21, 2006, column 'Fixing the public sector' this has, over the years, largely been a series of paring exercises, changing names and enhanced with spin.
There is no doubt that we have the necessary expertise among our people just waiting seriously to be utilised. The pivotal question however, is on the seriousness, competence, accountability and intent of our successive political leadership.
"Four things come not back, the spoken word, the sped arrow, the past life and the neglected opportunity."
Errol Hewitt is an information and communication technology planning consultant with the United Nations and the Commonwealth Secretariat.
