Ian Boyne

The propagandists and public relations specialists (sometimes they are thesame) must be sharpening their tools as they prepare for this most crucial Budget Debate before the general elections. It will be important that we know how not to be bamboozled.

Finance Minister Omar Davies has fired the first rounds in the propaganda war (though I have not had a chance to read his presentation as of this writing) and his marksman counterpart Audley Shaw is set to come blazing on Tuesday.

Audley has publicly said that he intends to 'mash down the lie' that there is no difference in economic strategy between the People's National Party (PNP) and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). He promises to pay much attention to debt strategy.

The presenters in the Budget Debate (which is more often a misnomer) will be more interested in influencing potential voters than impressing the intellectually discerning. But the media have the critical role of deconstructing the presentations surgically and of performing the public service of highlighting fallacious, non sequitur reasoning and unwarranted assumptions and conclusions.

We have a public responsibility to separate fact from empty propaganda, and evidence from vote-appealing rhetoric.

It might be hard in an election year for some of us to restrain our party political instincts and to professionally discharge our responsibilities as members of the esteemed Fourth Estate, but that is a discipline we must impose if we are to avoid recklessness.

High level

I expect both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to take the debate to a high level. The Leader of the Opposition certainly delivered a masterly presentation last year which he will find it hard to outdo. But I strongly suspect he will attempt to do just that.

And I more than suspect that the Prime Minister has every intention of bettering her last Budget presentation. We must judge both of them, as we do the rest of the presenters, for substance, not just style and theatrics. We have had enough of that. Jamaica faces serious challenges in this post-Cold War era of globalisation.

There are some internal and external dynamics which are working against us and with which the nation must grapple. If our leaders don't understand and focus on these, then they are not ready for 21st-century leadership.

Jamaica's low social capital is something which our leaders have to address. We don't trust one another. We have a zero-sum attitude and our unarticulated philosophy seems to be, "Do it unto others before they do it unto you".

The people who speak in this Budget Debate should read the book put out last year by the Centre for Leadership and Governance at the Department of Government, University of the West Indies, titled Probing Jamaica's Political Culture. It is based on a survey taken in the period July-August 2006.

Trust

People were asked, for example, "Would you say that most people can be trusted to keep their promises or that you can never be too careful when dealing with other people?" Only 14.1 per cent said people could be trusted while 83.5 per cent said one could never be too careful.

When asked, "Would you say that most people were essentially good and can be trusted or not essentially good and cannot be trusted", only 35.3 per cent believed that most people were essentially good while 59.4 per cent said the opposite.

When asked whether most people in Government could be trusted to keep their promises or whether one could never be too careful in dealing with people in Government, a paltry 7.4 per cent believed that people in Government could be trusted, while 84.8 per cent said the opposite, with 7.8 per cent - more than the affirmative - saying they either didn't know or never cared to give an answer.

All the politicians, not just those currently in Government, had better listen up. There is a serious problem with trust in the society.

International studies have been conclusive that low-trust societies navigate economic crises more awkwardly than high-trust societies. So, this budget debate cannot just be about economic models or economistic arguments.

Incidentally, the book shows that confidence in the main institutions in the society is also low, thereby revealing a systemic problem with trust.

Will this Budget Debate inspire greater trust? Can it serve to rally people's energies, give them a new, enlivening vision and make them believe in Jamaica again, or for the first time?

Will this Budget Debate make young people feel that there is a reason to stay in Jamaica? Will it make them feel that there is new hope and a brighter tomorrow? The Government is likely to tell us how good it has been doing economically and it has a lot of reasons to boast.

The figures are, indeed, looking good and if they weren't, the Opposition would legitimately be drawing a lot of attention to them. So, allow the Government to crow a little bit. Inflation is the lowest it has been in decades, so have interest rates and unemployment. Poverty has been declining (though this is most counter-intuitive). The net international reserves are strong and the economy grew last year.

No less a watchdog institution of global capitalism than the International Monetary Fund (IMF) says in its latest assessment of Jamaica (the Article IV Consultation, February 16, 2007) that "economic performance has been remarkably strong with Jamaica on target this fiscal year to achieve its best growth in over a decade. The economy has made a strong recovery from the shocks encountered in 2004-2005. Real economic growth of almost three per cent is expected in 2006/2007."

Skeptism

The IMF goes on to say that "this robust economic performance is being underpinned by the strength of the agricultural and tourism sectors. The Bank of Jamaica has successfully managed to lower inflation without constraining economic recovery."

However, the Government spokespersons need to realise that on the ground, the sense of well-being and progress do not match the figures. And, with the high degrees of skepticism to people in Government - and this would include the arms of Government like STATIN and the PlanningInstitute of Jamaica - don't be surprised if many people reject these glowing figures as fabrications to make the Government look good.

Try telling many housewives that inflation has been just over five per cent and tell their husbands and lovers that unemployment is declining. Go into the inner city and tell the people there that poverty has been declining and see the reception you get.

We in media, of course, cannot feed the empty and baseless skepticism and we must ask whether the skepticism would be the same if the figures were negative. We must insist on an evidence-based, empirical debate, not one which is speculative and intuitive.

An to the present strategies being undertaken by the Government must be outlined clearly, decisively and rigorously. They cannot be simply contrived. They must be convincing. If there is a better, more propitious set of economic strategies than the Omar Model, then the country deserves to hear it and assess it. And then, the Minister of Finance needs to come back and critique th proposed.

Let us have a real, substantial Budget Debate, with rea tossed around and critically assessed.

We must resist the urge to take a partisan approach to analysis. If the Opposition scores some good points against the Government, then we must acknowledge them and applaud the Opposition for those points. And vice-versa.

What we are talking about is Jamaica's interests. We have to put those ahead of partisan and sectarian interests. This is not Portia's or Bruce's backyard or verandah. It is our country. They have offered themselves as our servants. We can't regard them as our masters.

Analyse arguments

As the presenters in this Budget Debate speak, let us carefully analyse their arguments, scrupulously weigh the facts presented and listen intently to their critique of the other side. We must make our own assessment of the respect they are showing for our intelligence and ability to judge what they are saying.

If it is clear that they have little regard for our reasoning ability, then we should treat their presentations with the same respect accorded us. We must demand much from our politicians in terms of level of debate and not be clouded by whom we love. We must separate feelings from facts.

Who has done the careful research? Who has made a compelling case? Whose arguments are shot through with gaping holes? Who is trying to fool whom? Who is using empty polemics and histrionics to score points rather than drive home truth? Listen and read discriminatingly and assess with your head, not your heart.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com.