Edward Seaga
FOR THE past 50 years, and somewhat more, Jamaicans have been made to believe that when a system does not work, don't fix it, get a new model.
No probing questions should be asked as to the cause of non-performance or inadequate performance. Just find something new which can be put to the
people as the new source of hope. Once the new path is identified, off we go on an adventure to find an evasive solution.
There are ever so many ways in which this fixation or preference has played out in Jamaican life. Let's start with the most far reaching of the diversions in search of a new Jerusalem.
From the end of the 1940s, the English-speaking colonies of the Caribbean considered the
wisdom of a collective effort to establish nationhood through a federation. One can well imagine why such a proposal would have been attractive. Small states in the Caribbean, while hopeful of achieving independence in the near future, were uncertain of the possibility. Some states were micro, under-sized geographically and in population. The idea of collective independence through a federation was an attractive solution.
Being equipped with the resources for independence was a different matter.
The small states had a mono-cultural agricultural base of bananas or sugar, mainly. Tourism was largely an unknown prospect. Development of an embryonic bauxite industry was only beginning to appear in one or two states. Little domestic manufacturing existed. In these circumstances, a collective
pooling of efforts as a federal state seemed sensible.
GOOD STRIDES
However, the Jamaican case was different. In the last half of the 1950s, Jamaica was making good strides in advancing to political self-government on its own. Concurrently, there were exciting developments for economic growth: the bauxite industry was beginning to expand; manufacturing was spreading; and tourism was beginning to show some prospects in a couple of countries. Thousands of unemployed Jamaicans were migrating to the United Kingdom throughout the 1950s, taking the pressure off the need to find jobs for a significant portion of the labour force.
Many persons, particularly at the political level, began to
wonder why Jamaica was not pursuing independence on its own since the prospects for
success were looking good. Why link Jamaica with other territories which had no such rosy prospects, prejudicing the robust nature of the future of the country?
I was among those in the forefront of this approach led by the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), although I was only a young and new member. Our vision was nationalistic: an independent and
prosperous Jamaica; and our
mission was to secure that goal as quickly as possible.
We did so readily with politically strategic moves that ended in the calling of a referendum
to let the people decide. The
referendum was a resounding nationalist victory for Jamaica's independence. The campaign was positive all the way. The people knew little about a Federation of the West Indies and less about the Caribbean people who would be their
partners. They could find little identification.
The referendum victory was
followed within months by a
general election victory for the JLP which ushered in independence for Jamaica in 1962. The dynamism which had been released in the thrust for independence propelled the new nation forward into a burst of nationalistic consciousness.
Jamaica's cultural heritage was enthusiastically promoted:
The flag; the anthem;
The Jamaica Festival;
Our own Jamaican pop music Ska, rock steady, reggae;
National Heroes Awards; return of the body of Marcus Garvey;
National heritage recognition introduction of National Heroes Week;
Promotion of indigenous crafts;
Showcasing cultural achievements at Devon House.
With the demand for "things Jamaican", economic development boomed;
Broad-scale Jamaican
manufactured consumer goods, flourished;
Bauxite mining moved quickly to the next stage, the
alumina industry;
Tourism, showcasing the island's beauty, developed rapidly;
Air Jamaica took to the skies, our own airline;
Many new types of banks and other financial institutions, were established for the first time in Jamaica;
The financial sector was 'Jamaicanised' to offer ownership to Jamaicans in a foreign dominated sector;
A stock exchange was launched;
The growth rate was the
highest among developing
countries.
'JAMAICAN MIRACLE'
The performance was known internationally as the 'Jamaican miracle'. The nationalistic drive for Jamaica's independence was inspiring. It produced these remarkable results. In contrast, the federal escapade sapped the energy of the country with an uninspiring foreign adventure which would never have had these exciting results. The home-grown nationalist solution,
independence, proved to be the right course and the better choice.
This boom was not to last. With a change of government in 1972, the People's National Party took the country into another
foreign adventure. Instead of improving on the performance of the JLP government of the 1960s, the then Prime Minister, Michael Manley, diverted Jamaica to a radically new
direction, socialism. Perhaps Manley thought that the social deficiencies, which still persisted in the 1960s, despite robust
economic growth, could be overcome by the socialist strategy of distributing economic gains more widely to reach those who were not sufficiently benefiting. This ultimately amounted to a 'pulling down' economic effect rather than a 'pushing up'. The psychological impact on the investor and entrepreneurial classes of this radically new direction cascaded into withdrawal of investment, loss of jobs, flight of capital, scarcity of foreign exchange, shortages,
outages and stoppages. It precipitated an economic disaster (eight years of negative growth), social disorder (rampant crime) and loss of 25 per cent of the equivalent of all skilled persons who lost hope and migrated over the last four years of the 1980s. By the end of the 1980s, the World Bank called the Jamaican economy the second worst in the world.
SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS RAISED
This socialist adventure was not all negative. Far from it. Michael Manley raised the social consciousness of Jamaicans, their self-worth and self-esteem, as individuals. In the 1960s I had raised the cultural consciousness and awareness of Jamaicans, as Jamaicans. Had Manley followed Garvey's direction of building social esteem with strategies that were not perceived as being threatening to ownership and enterprise, he would have been far more successful. He could have built on the economic and cultural gains of the 1960s, social gains of the 1970s.
The socialist era ended in virtual worldwide collapse as a doctrine in 1981 and as a system of
governance at the end of the 1980s. Jamaica suffered extensive setbacks to the economy and great damage to the social fabric of the society, losing far more overall than was gained. The decade-long adventure wasted resources, time, effort and national vitality which had to be restored at great cost, some of which have not yet been accomplished.
Two failed foreign adventures in 30 years, dominating national focus and redirecting national energies away from productive results, would be enough to destabilize any small society. Yet we are about to embark on a third, a re-run of the earlier Caribbean integration effort of the 1950s the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME). The concept is not invalid as a strategy for boosting economic performance, in the main. For
several countries in the CARICOM group with solid performance or potential to perform in the export market or to attract new investment to add to existing production, (not to the buy out going enterprises), the CSME can be an effective mechanism to increase exports and productive investment. Jamaica was once at the top of the list as a strong exporter to CARICOM countries. It is now near the
bottom. Jamaica's trading record with CARICOM is 4.3 per cent and 4.9 per cent of its total exports and imports (less oil) respectively, figures too negligible to factor into Jamaican trade statistics.
BARGAIN BASEMENT
In so far as investment is concerned, Jamaica has become a bargain basement for sale of existing assets, not for new investment to add to existing production.
To be fair, these investments have been of significant value to the Jamaican economy by rescuing failed enterprises and have added value. But Jamaica has not attracted 'greenfield' investments, (starting from scratch), from CARICOM.
At the heart of the Jamaican problem of non-performance has been one of the worse productivity rates in the region; an exchange rate prone to sudden and unpredictable bouts of instability and interest rates that discourage, even repel, investments at 25 per cent to the borrower. In Jamaica, these factors go to creating non-competitive costs for Jamaican goods and services but are production-friendly in most other CARICOM countries, positioning them to benefit from the CSME.
Until Jamaica corrects these aberrations in its economic performance, it cannot benefit from the CSME, and full involvement in the CSME would be another diversionary adventure, misdirecting the focus of national energies and taking the country nowhere. This is particularly so, based on the hype of the CSME as a miracle solution for the malaise and stagnation besetting the Jamaican economy over more than a dozen years.
Once more, the country is to be called upon to follow an adventure trail which will lead to yet another dead end of frustration and disappointment.
The West Indies Federation, socialism and the CSME, in the Jamaican experience, have either been flops or positioned to flop, with damage to the prospects of the country to move forward on a sustained basis. Notwithstanding these lessons of failed experiences and a potential further frustration in the CSME, Jamaica may soon find itself facing another spell of disruption in the proposal to introduce for national debate, an
entirely new system of governance, the American-style separation of power, in contrast to the Westminster model which offers a balance of power. If this is pursued to national debating level it will become a diversionary academic exercise. But if it becomes a
political platform, it must be judged not only on the merits and demerits of the proposal. It should be judged also on on whether, against the background of three failed attempts to find 'new'
solutions rather than reforming the existing processes, it is a move
forward or another sidestep which will delay attempts to come to grips with the real problems of the country.
For some 50 years, the critical problems of education, justice and the economy have continued rather than been resolved, largely because ideological and other interventions have been used to shift our focus from the critical path.
What Jamaicans need now is to reject further diversions and insist on a nationalist perspective of putting Jamaica first. This approach does not disregard regional and global alignments. It simply re-positions the gravemen to pose the critical question: What's in it for us? Is Jamaica's interest protected? Charting a regional destiny is not without merit, as long as Jamaica's
destiny is first fulfilled. Our
destiny is to fulfill the potential of a country that has no reason to be poor: rich in human and
natural resources, weak in
leadership with confidence to chart a path and stay the course rather than succumbing to obstacles by seeking out unrealistic obstacle-free courses.
The truly brilliant experience of our history was when Jamaica was propelled by an explosion of nationalism after independence to levels of excellence acclaimed throughout the world. The
creation of a new national thrust of excellence is possible if it is galvanised to action and the national focus is shifted to 'Jamaica first'. To accomplish this, Jamaicans need a strong dose of nationalism.
Edward Seaga is a former prime minister. He is now a distinguished fellow at the University of the West Indies.
