Ian Boyne, Contributor
TIME IS a helluva thing. For the last 37 years, gambling has been such a hot-button issue in Jamaica that no government dared to introduce casino gaming for fear that it would be burnt to a crisp by the Church. But Prime Minister Golding has done it, and it doesn't even make the headlines!
It is called timing and context. Apparently relieved by a recent poll which showed that the majority of Jamaicans are no longer shackled by the Church's view that casino gambling is irredeemably evil, Golding has gambled on this decision, which will further his 'jobs, jobs, jobs' strategy and bring substantial foreign-direct investment.
Overtaken by events
I think it is not a foolish, Cash Plus-type gamble as the Church has simply been overtaken by events and swept away by an ideological tide. The country has grown far more utilitarian and pragmatic since the 1970s and more concerned about bread-and-butter issues than theological scruples. Besides, the incremental steps toward casino gambling have been so advanced that the issue is no longer taboo. The gambling culture has now been mainstreamed.
The casino decision, the increase in mortgage rates for the National Housing Trust (which chased the casino issue from the headlines), the enquiry into FINSAC, the social goodies doled out by the prime minister and the 'let them eat cassava' drive have overshadowed what is a significant political development emerging from the budget: Peter Bunting's historic departure from the People's National Party's (PNP's) democratic socialist roots and philosophy.
Glaring contradiction
The media did pick up and highlight the glaring contradiction between the positions taken by the party spokesman on industry and the opposition leader, Portia Simpson Miller. While the opposition leader, wisely in my view, praised the Government for its abolition of user fees in hospitals and continued her commendable advocacy for the poor and marginalised, former banker Peter Bunting railed against the populist policies of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), more specifically, its free tuition and health fees policies. But there is a deeper analysis which is yet to be done in media and the keen political observers and social scientists must already have been taking notes.
On the eve of the launch of the 70th anniversary celebrations of the PNP, here we have the general secretary and a man widely seen as a contender for the presidency of the party taking a position which has traditionally been associated with the JLP.
Before the elections, I had made the point that the JLP was sounding more like the PNP and the PNP sounding more like the JLP.
In the pre-election period, while the JLP was making promises to the masses, the PNP was warning about fiscal recklessness and "unsustainable promises".
Now in this Budget Debate, we have an opposition spokesman actually using the word 'populist' to describe the JLP's policies, which must strike any astute observer of local politics as absolutely ironic, considering that was the 'dirty word' used to describe Simpson Miller's position in the past. That was the word her opponents used to dismiss her.
Deepening irony
The irony deepens. Bunting actually castigated the JLP's policies on health and education as fostering a 'freeness' mentality, which is exactly what was used against Michael Manley in the 1970s when he introduced a host of social policies to benefit the poor.
Hear the wealthy former banker and entrepreneur: "The idea of freeness can always be relied on to provide some popular response. It is rooted in the old clientelistic model of government, useful for garnering votes, particularly in developing countries."
This is a profound philosophical departure from PNP principles. It is not incidental. Bunting is making a philosophical critique of the JLP and both Finance Minster Audley Shaw and Prime Minister Bruce Golding wisely caught the point.
The minister made this important point in closing the Budget Debate on Wednesday: "This Budget lays the foundation for a new kind of governance where no matter the challenge, no matter the obstacles, we are committed to finding a way to keep people at the centre. This represents our fundamental philosophical point of departure."
Leaving out the exaggeration about this path being new (everyone would agree it characterised at least the Michael Manley era), the point is that Audley was staking a philosophical position.
"Indeed," he went on to say correctly, "this was a common philosophical thread running through the presentations of the Government members."
Rhetorically brilliant
The prime minister was rhetorically brilliant in rebutting Bunting's neo-liberal dogma: he said Bunting's position reflected not just "a philosophical fixity" but a "myopic disposition". Chiding him for the unbalanced view that "people must take personal responsibility" (a crude and socially irresponsible view held by the Republican Party of the United States), Golding said educating our children was more than just a parental responsibility.
That one could live to hear the JLP lecturing a PNP member, let alone a general secretary, on this is surrealistic. Manley's grave must be disturbed! Clive Millings shouted out appropriately: "Is that PNP come to? My God!" as Golding was articulately tearing into Bunting's neo-liberal views.
In one instance of oratorical delight - his entire delivery was masterful - Golding noted that "the Government grants billions of dollars of incentives, waivers and concessions to the hotel sector" and other moneyed interests.
Then, he quoted approvingly the former firebrand socialist D.K. Duncan as saying when Government provides assistance to people at the top it is a called "incentives", but when it must be given to people at the bottom, it is denigrated as "subsidies"!
DK shook his head and smiled broadly, perhaps with a mixture of delight and embarrassment for his ambitious colleague.
Portia was excellent in her advocacy of the poor (and standing up for family values), reminding the House of her life-long devotion to the marginalised.
On whichever side of the House she has sat, she observed, she has never shifted from the side of the poor. Are we now seeing the signs of an ideological split in the party, or is this just Bunting's personal views?
Mainstream thinking
As much as Golding rightly tore into Bunting's philosophical disagreement with his social policies, the fact is that much of the JLP's traditional support base in the private sector and the middle class holds to Bunting's views.
It is only because we are so unthinkingly partisan in this country why Golding gets applauded for doing things, which if the PNP did, would be condemned as socialism, populism and fiscal irresponsibility. People don't think principles in Jamaica; they think party.
Attack Peter Bunting as much as you like, his views represent mainstream thinking in the Jamaican private sector and among the bulk of the financial analysts who are interviewed on the talk shows.
It is not convenient to utter them now ,for the JLP is in power and is embracing polices which much of the electorate would find favourable.
But philosophically, the financial analysts, private-sector spokespersons and a number of leading talk-show hosts and editorial writers hold Bunting's view.
Rebrand the PNP
Could Bunting seek to rebrand the PNP, trying to capture that constituency?
Could Bunting - whose views of personal responsibility, limited Government, pulling-yourself-up-by-your-own bootstraps, are also shared by other well-heeled people of his age group - seek to pull the PNP away from the 'populism' of party leader Simpson Miller?
These are interesting days for the PNP. Many lament that Simpson Miller has lost the middle and business classes. Could Bunting represent their hope of returning the party to power?
It could well be that Bunting sees a vacuum, as the traditionally conservative, anti-socialist JLP is now seeming to be on the populist path as well, while his leader has just lost the elections despite her own populist image.
And remember that Bunting would be seen as more pro-business than Peter Phillips, who cannot be weaned from the PNP's social democratic principles.
Bunting has the record of business success, is seen as a bright young man and could be someone that the business and moneyed classes could see as a potential leader to break the stranglehold of populist politics in Jamaica.
For despite the propaganda against Seaga, and the left's unfairly painting him as being hostage to the ruling class, Seaga - the 'haves and have-nots' man - devised many polices to benefit the poor and was philosophically opposed to neo-liberalism.
Seaga was no believer in a minimalist, hands-off state and, in fact, has been regarded by social scientists as a statist. He certainly believed in a developmentalist state.
Out-of-sync views
Bunting could well launch a politically neo-conservative era while espousing neo-liberal economics. What Bunting dismissed as a "paternalistic type of responsibility" by Government is precisely what even institutions like the World Bank, the IMF and the USAID have mainstreamed and are recommending as standard policy. Bunting's right-wing views are not only out of sync with the PNP's, but out of sync with the best research in development studies.
There is now even talk of putting conditions on aid on Governments' willingness to enact polices to help the poor - and this is coming from the developed countries themselves.
Bunting sees the JLP policies for free education and free tuition as just an example of "the budget being hostage to the political need to be seen as fulfilling election promises".
Even if that were so, the fact is that, objectively, the people benefit. At least, the working class is able to extract some benefits from the State, which usually operates in the interest of the propertied classes.
The virtue of the democratic contest is that the power elite, irrespective of its tight-fistedness and class interests, has to give some concessions to the masses to gain and retain state power.
Declining social capital
The opposition leader did the right thing to commend the Government for the socially enlightened policies which it has enacted, pledging to continue supporting those policies which are pro-poor. That is how a responsible and principled opposition must behave.
My major disappointment with the Budget Debate is that the prime minister failed to address the country's growing social and moral crisis and our rapidly declining social capital.
And I wish to suggest to him that the successful implementation of his budget is dependent on that issue being adequately addressed.
Ian Boyne is aveteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com.
