Christopher Tufton, Contributor

The Prime Minister's photo opportunity with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez earlier this week represents another loan to the Jamaican people. This time, it is US$273.39 million or J$17,770 million.

In this case the loans are intended for development projects and based on reports, the terms and conditions are attractive. The challenge will be in the administration of these funds. As we have seen so often, monies are borrowed with stated good intentions but over time cost overruns from inefficiencies and/or corruption undermines these noble stated goals.

Changing the course

While I agree that borrowing is not a problem if it leads to economic growth, in our case, we borrow and wonder later where the money has gone. In terms of economic growth, we are averaging less than one per cent over the last fifteen years! This should be a compelling reason to stop, take stock and re-think our approach.

In all this, the debt keeps mounting. So far this year the Prime Minister has presided over a Government that has borrowed $50 billion to service the debt, $11 billion more than what was budgeted for this financial year. This is in addition to the approximately eight hundred billion debt that is currently in place.

Projections vs achievements

At the same time and despite all the optimism from the Government, Bank of Jamaica and the Planning Institute of Jamaica, projections of growth seem stuck in the projection phase. And while we should all welcome recent announcements of growth in areas like agriculture, we should accept that this has really been a recovery from post Hurricane Ivan. With a record of non-performance, as far as economic growth is concerned, we are well within our right to ask why after all this borrowing, growth continues to elude us? Why should we stay this course?

One would risk no possibility of contradiction if one argues that the most consistent feature of this administration is borrowing to service debt and its inability to achieve economic growth. Because as a country we are failing to achieve desirable levels of economic expansion, not only can we not service our debt from our own levels of productivity, but we are unable to pay our teachers, nurses and policemen. They are encouraged to contain their desire to live comfortably, using instruments like Memorandums of Understanding (MoU). But with justification they ask, to what end?

The MoU and the worker

Those who are chief advocates of the second MoU rarely focus on the waste and indiscipline of Government, perhaps because they fear their own vulnerabilities. In the case of Government, they are about containing expenses but with little concern, it seems, for their own indiscretions of waste and inefficiencies. It's called authority without responsibility and it is another typical feature of this Government. It appears also that trade unions are fearful of the threat of job losses, the strongest argument advanced by the Government, if the MoU fails.

This might be an understandable concern, however, deeper analysis should question the sustainability of protecting jobs in an environment where waste and inefficiencies are more the norm than the exception. Cost overruns on places like Sandals Whitehouse, the North Coast Highway and National Solid Waste translates to a Government that has to account for those inefficiencies by borrowing more and/or restricting expenditure, which in turn means less for teachers, nurses and policemen. This pattern has become entrenched, and without growth there is no end in sight.

The process leading to MoU2 seems insensitive to the examples of countries where social partnerships work, and the discipline required from the State to convince other stakeholders. This should not be about intentions to achieve, it is about achievement. The State must demonstrate prudent management and demonstrate its capacity to grow the economy so that over time workers who are called on to sacrifice can realise for themselves and the next generation the benefits of their sacrifice.

Sacrifice without reward

The problem with this current MoU2 is that the sacrifices made with MoU1 have not demonstrated sufficient evidence that people are better off or likely to be better off for that matter. It re-enforces an important point. It's not what you sign on to that really matters in the final analysis, it's the results of the implementation. For the teachers, nurses and policemen implementation has been a failure. Here there are serious credibility issues with Government policy.

This argument in support of both MoUs, that jobs will be saved, is unlikely to be sustained in the medium to long term if economic expansion does not take place. So while saving jobs might be desirable, the question is for how long if as a country more and better opportunities are not created.

The reality is that teachers, nurses and policemen are unlike Government which can borrow against the future generations of the country. They have little recourse but to keep depriving themselves of their basic needs or to agitate for better opportunities here or abroad. One could argue that as a country we need social stability to ensure economic opportunities. On the other hand, it is economic opportunities that sustain social stability. It's a formula this Government has not been able to get right, even after seventeen years in government.

In all this a cash-strapped government seems increasingly incapable of carrying out its primary function of being the guardian or protector of the welfare and well-being of the people. An examination of how we treat with health care and education is instructive and supports the view of the negative consequences of an economy that fails to grow.

Hospital Fees - Policy vs practice

User fees at hospitals are so burdensome to the poorest in our society that people are literally dying for medical care. Today, poor Jamaicans are literally fearful of going to the public hospitals because they lack the resources and would rather die with their dignity than to suffer the humiliation of unaffordable bills. It is immoral and perhaps even illegal as the official policy says no one should be refused treatment but so many are because they have no money and the system is ill prepared to cater to them, usually because of a lack of supplies.

I have been exposed to emergency cases where patients cannot get treatment because there is no gas or transportation to move them from one location to another or where surgery cannot take place because patients have no money to purchase the drugs or other supplies needed for their operation. It is a crisis for the poor and the vulnerable.

In all this, hospital administrators are made out to be the monsters of the system, burdened to sustain their activities because the Government gives them less than is required and makes them out to be enforcers of an inhumane and cruel policy which denies people the right to health care. Something is wrong with this policy.

Education - Cost sharing

The Government has also abandoned its election promise of doing away with cost sharing up to the secondary level. I have seen letters signed by principals telling high school students that they will be barred from starting the term if they fail to pay. Many just simply cannot afford it and the PATH programme is unavailable to them.

Something is wrong when children cannot get access to secondary education because they are unable to pay school fees. It is said that increasingly mankind is engaged in a race between education and catastrophe. With almost eight of every ten of our graduates having no academic qualification and skills, we are courting catastrophe. This is a course we cannot afford to maintain.

I recently heard the Minister of Education, chastising parents who do not pay school fees calling on them to take responsibility to educate their children. Does the Minister not understand that every child who turns up to school on a given day, already has invested in him or her approximately 60 per cent of what it cost to provide that education? The cost of education is not just fees; it's books, uniforms, transportation, lunch and other miscellaneous costs. And why was the Minister part of an election manifesto saying they would abolish cost sharing and he now preaches the need for it to be held in place. Again, school administrators are portrayed as monsters as they are forced to enforce an inhumane policy.

Going for growth

So as the Prime Minister signs another loan agreement, let's hope she pays particular attention to ensuring that as a country we get value for money. Let us hope that economic growth is the end result of this exercise. The nurses, teachers, policemen, children and poor hospital patients need the break. As we all watch and pray that things will change for the better, let's remind the Prime Minister that faith without works leads to more misery and the further unhappiness of the people.

Dr. Chris Tufton is an Opposition Senator. Email cctufton@yahoo.com.