Peter D. Phillips, Contributor

The Budget Debate is now over, at least in its first phase, and the Appropriations Bill has been passed so money voted by Parliament can be spent. Another phase of the debate on Government policies will begin later in May when the so-called Sectoral Debate begins and we all get a full statement of government policies and programmes to be pursued in the various sectors.

Much passion, and indeed conflict, was evident in the Parliament as the Government and Opposition contended over the outlines and content of the new government's first Budget. No doubt, the lines drawn in the Parliament will continue to be debated in the streets; and in the offices, verandas and bars, as we all confront the merits or demerits of the food-security policies, or the announced rise in interest rates for some National Housing Trust (NHT) loans, or of a commission of enquiry into FINSAC, or casinos.

Persistent tension

All of these issues and others raised have significance not only for individual Jamaicans, but for the country. What was most striking, however, was the manifestation once again of the persistent tension between the politics of populism and the politics of development, which has been a continuing feature of our modern politics in Jamaica.

The People's National Party (PNP), which was founded as the first of our modern parties, emerged from the social upheavals and worker protests of 1938, embodied a profound popular yearning and demand for national development. The Moyne Commission, which followed the riots which occurred here and elsewhere in the Caribbean, provided an opportunity for Norman Manley and others to set out critical elements of a platform for national development. Apart from the recommendation for new constitutional arrangements, including universal adult suffrage, the Moyne Commission endorsed proposals for land reform, improved government support for housing, education and the like.

The emergence of a two-party competition after the formation of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) in 1941, created a new environment that was increasingly dominated by the electoral calculations of the two parties. The dominance for the populist approach to politics did not occur all at once, however. Few recall now that it was Norman Manley who, although he was still in Opposition, introduced the bills establishing the Industrial Development Corporation (which has subsequently been transformed into Jamaica Trade and Invest), and the Agricultural Development Corporation. These were to be accepted by the Bustamante government.

Critical rupture

The critical rupture in this essentially bipartisan approach to fundamental issues of national development came over the issue of Federation where, by all accounts, Bustamante was persuaded to oppose the Federation, primarily by the prospect of electoral advantage. Even then, following this defeat in the referendum, N.W. Manley insisted on a bipartisan approach in formulating the Independence Constitution and in negotiating the terms of our separation from the British colonial power.

That was probably the last major instance of effective bipartisan collaboration around fundamentals, with the exception perhaps of the decision to establish the Electoral Advisory Committee in 1979.

What is significant and indeed troubling, is that despite the very many policy initiatives, both those which enjoyed bipartisan support and those which did not, the nation, for the most part, has not maintained its position in the world, as compared with other nations which started in a similar situation in the 1950s. Our educational performance is abysmal as is now generally recognised.

Despite a myriad agricultural initiatives, including land settlement programmes of the 1940s and '50s, and the land lease and land reform efforts of the 1970s, Agro 21 of the 1980s, and the policies of the 1990s, the transformation of the rural agricultural economy has not taken place. Despite striking gains, particularly in the area of primary health care, the bulk of the population still does not have access to first-rate curative services.

Short-term perspectives

It is not that we do not have qualified people to implement policies, or that we are less competent or imaginative as a people. Rather, the problem seems simply that our politics remains too mired in the short-term perspectives of populist politics.

The case of the current initiative to provide free health care makes the point. Everyone, (certainly every progressive person) would agree that easily affordable or free access to effective health care should be a fundamental human right. The question is how to achieve this. The Government opted to remove user fees and to make the provision of free health care a charge on the Consolidated Fund. Other options, were, however, available, which could equally guarantee access for all at affordable cost, with minimal risk of deteriorating services. One such option would be a national health insurance scheme in which employers and employees would share the premium costs and where the Government would subsidise the poorest among us.

Not enough discussion

More amazing is the fact that the country has embarked upon the new policy with little discussion as to the appropriate levels of health care to be provided or the projected cost of these provisions to the taxpayers of the country over say, the next five to 10 years. The driving force behind the policy seems simply to have been by the electoral considerations with very little debate encouraged about policy alternatives.

Similarly, despite the urgency of the challenge of improving educational standards and the centrality of this issue to Jamaica's prospects for development, next to nothing was said of this matter during the Budget Debate.

Again, the Government seems to be satisfied with simply meeting electioneering commitments to remove tuition fees without seriously addressing the subject of educational transformation and improving quality. We should all remember that we have travelled this road before with the 'free education' initiative of the 1970s. No one could oppose the fact that free education is desirable. We must, nevertheless, also ensure that each child receives a quality education that would enable him/her and Jamaica to compete in an increasingly knowledge-based world economy.

Now that we are all experiencing the full force of the impact of intensified globalisation and the risks to be confronted in rising food prices, and spiralling energy costs, we should at least recognise that our very national survival is at stake. If we are to confront these challenges and allow our people the opportunity of continued economic and social progress, then we should at least understand the limitations of short-term populist politics.

Viable alternative

The only viable alternative is a return to a politics driven by developmental priorities and with willingness for meaningful bipartisan and national engagements. Successive Vale Royal talks represent a start. So far, however, there has been very little momentum developed.

Dr Peter Phillips is opposition spokesman on national security and leader of opposition business in the House.