Don Robotham, ContributorTHE RECENT Budget speeches from both Government and Opposition are cause for cautious hope. It is far too early to conclude and it may all go horribly wrong, but there is no doubting the positives. In all, the Budget presentations so far, sober and objective analyses trumped hysteria. Most important, the Opposition did not confine itself to the mantra of 'oppose, oppose, oppose.' On the contrary, Mr. Golding's theme seemed to be 'propose, propose,
propose.'
The country has not failed to note and appreciate this important change. Contrary to what many of his more light-headed colleagues imagine, this constructive approach is going to win, not lose him support. But the reason for cautious optimism goes well beyond the performance of Mr. Golding. The
optimism is based on five factors: first, the positive macroeconomic outlook;
second, the positive investment and growth prospects; third, and as a result of the first two, we are now able to set aside significant resources to address social problems; four, serious efforts to address crime seem to be afoot; and five, a broad social consensus and
partnership on public policy is emerging.
These are all critical developments which we must appreciate and work very hard to nourish and consolidate. They are by no means stable at the moment. Huge international forces (increased energy prices, a collapse of the U.S. dollar, a sharp U.S. economic downturn) may yet have devastating consequences. The possibility of domestic forces destabilising this new consensus is also great, especially around the issue of crime reduction and tribal politics. But if we understand what is at stake and work hard to anticipate and control the destructive forces in Jamaica, we stand a fighting chance.
MR. PATTERSON'S THIRD WAY
Mr. Patterson is a Third Way social democrat very much of the same pro-market orientation as Tony Blair. His is one of a growing number of regimes in Latin America and the Caribbean Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and very likely soon Mexico under Lopez Obrador which are taking this path, with very similar economic and social outcomes. Venezuela is a special case which is to the left of this group although it, too, is obviously a part of the gathering trend to the left in the region.
The shift in our political culture towards consensus is a result of Mr. Patterson's personal temperament as well as this ideological orientation. As many have noted, it is the major
contribution of the Prime Minister. The country will remember him with great appreciation for this long after his
innumerable policy measures have
vanished. But there is an even more important contribution which Prime Minister Patterson has made to Jamaica's long term stability and development which most commentators have avoided mentioning so far.
This has been in the difficult and contentious area of Jamaican race relations. Quietly but persistently, he has recentered Jamaica as a black nation. Given the history of Jamaica and its social and cultural divisiveness, this is an achievement of much importance.
Of course, this recentering has not been psychologically painless for light-skinned and even many black Jamaicans. Black self-doubt remains a real problem and is a contributory factor to social instability and even crime and violence, albeit in indirect ways. Light-skinned anxiety and insecurity too is a problem. Clichés about 'out of many one people' and doubt about where light-skinned Jamaicans belong in Mr. Patterson's black cultural scenario are predictable and understandable. I write as a light-skinned Jamaican myself.
But all must admit that this silent transformation (which is by no means complete) has been greeted with remarkably little social and political hostility from the top of the society. The reason for this lack of élite hostility to the People's National Party (PNP) on the matter of blackness is the cynical political secret of the day in Jamaica: the enrichment of the upper end of Jamaican society under Mr. Patterson's Third Way. Why worry about Emancipation Park and black
history month if one's wealth, primed by the high interest rate regime, is
growing astronomically?
The largely symbolic cultural nature and lack of economic and social content of Mr. Patterson's black agenda is striking. Thirteen years of Pattersonianism has left the equation 'black equals poor' in Jamaica largely intact. This real failure on the economic and social fronts diminishes greatly but does not erase what has been achieved in the cultural arena. Under Mr. Patterson, there is no doubt that the irrepressible black middle class continues its march onward and upward and that a black bourgeoisie continues to grow. The equation light skin equals capitalist is changing. The growth and consolidation of a black bourgeoisie in Jamaica at the expense of the black masses, is without doubt one of the greatest 'achievements' of Mr. Patterson's version of the Third Way. This was the core point in the letter by the Reverend Wesley C. Boynes which was published in The Gleaner on April 15. Rev. Boynes has been unfairly
castigated in the press for standing up for ethical consistency and daring to criticize the Prime Minister's birthday parties as a typical expression of these growing inequalities and the self-serving tendencies of our black élite. More power to him I say!
This enormous growth in social and economic inequality is characteristic
of Third Way regimes everywhere, including Brazil under Lula and Britain under Blair. In the United Kingdom, despite the huge job creation and relative prosperity, a recent study has revealed that the top one per cent of the society increased its share of national wealth from 18 per cent to 23 per cent since Blair's Third Way has been in power.
MISSED THE POINT
Unsurprisingly, there is not a word about the growth of social and economic inequality in Mr. Patterson's lengthy and self-congratulatory speech. Dr. Baugh, because of inadequate study of the matter, sadly typical of the Opposition, missed the point completely in his contribution on poverty. The point, Dr. Baugh, is that, given the
distribution of poverty and the effects of inflation reduction, it is perfectly
possible for poverty to be reduced while social inequality skyrockets. Indeed, this is precisely what has happened in Jamaica under Mr. Patterson. The point further is this: Extreme inequalities in a small space breed alienation; alienation breeds violent crime; and violent crime breeds social instability.
This brings us to the two key social interventions in the Prime Minister's Budget presentation: the new Education Transformation Project and his restoration of the Lift Up Jamaica project. The first is being financed through the J$5 billion provided from the National Housing Trust by Mr. Kingsley Thomas. The second is funded by J$2 billion from the Caracas Energy Agreement, courtesy of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
Both these social interventions are greatly to be welcomed. But there are real problems with how they are being approached, at least based on what we have heard so far. The problem briefly is this: The approach outlined is a very orthodox bureaucratic Pattersonian one, long on pompous slogans and
innumerable bits-and-pieces-juicy contracts for the faithful! But short on focus, outcomes and the making of hard choices. We can easily fling J$7 billion (and more) at education and youth and at the end of the day, get nothing in return. Let me hasten to concede the Prime Minister's defence: This is not wholly about corruption, although that is not to be minimised. It has more to do with a fatal reliance on the personally loyal to implement projects, an
unwillingness to rely on the best persons and methods come what may and to deal with the hard fundamentals. Our
problems are hard ones and will not be impacted, except negatively, by cronyism and shallowness. The Government has to think and act with seriousness and
outside the box. So far, it has shown it is only willing to do so when its back is completely against the wall.
A good example of this policy inertia, to be polite, is the current Inner-City Housing Programme also a beneficiary of Mr. Thomas's largesse, this time to the tune of J$7 billion. This is the programme to build new inner-city housing which is already well under way in the Denham Town and Matthews Lane areas with 98 units scheduled to be completed by June of this year. In all, 584 low-income housing units are to be built by the end of this year alone, in Trench Town, White Wing, Maxfield Avenue and elsewhere. In the coming financial year, the Prime Minister announced plans for the construction of a further 1,810 housing units in low-income communities throughout the country.
BREAKING THE IRON NEXUS?
Does anyone expect that this large, low-income housing programme will make even the slightest contribution to breaking the iron nexus between social housing, garrison communities, political violence and crime? Only a fool would harbour such illusions. This is the same Mr. Patterson who has repeatedly stated his desire to break this very nexus. Yet a huge opportunity is being missed here. I am surprised at the wholly free ride that the media have given the Government in this crucial area.
Thankful as we are for the social
housing, "significant progress"
which reinforces garrisons is totally
unacceptable. If the plans on education and youth as announced by the Prime Minister are implemented as is, then I have not the slightest doubt that the J$4 billion for education and the J$2 billion for youth too will yield yet another
version of this tarnished "significant progress." Significant progress will be better than none. But at the end of the day, the central problems in education and among our youth will go from worse to worst
