In the turbulent era of the 1970s, the acronym 'IMF' was often affixed as an epithet to the then Prime Minister, Michael Manley, meaning 'Is Manley's Fault', as the country lurched from one financial crisis to the other.

The fund's policies and conditionalities, attached to loan agreements with countries which sought its funding support in times of economic blight, became lightning rods of criticism to local ideologues on the left and the right.

Critics of the then government blamed the administration for poor management which propelled the country into the arms of the IMF, while the administration's supporters blamed the fund for imposing harsh policies that made difficult economic situations even more severe.

With a change in administration in the 1980s and similar policies being imposed by the fund, the roles of critics and supporters were reversed.

For while the IMF was a sure trigger for public ire in Jamaica's previous borrowing days, there was little appreciation of the rationale for the strictures imposed by the fund on the country. So there was much relief when the government of Prime Minister P.J. Patterson ended Jamaica's borrowing relationship with the IMF in the 1990s.

It is perhaps an indication, however, of a greater level of sobriety or maturity among Jamaicans that Finance Minister Audley Shaw's stated intention to have Jamaica borrow from the IMF again (for which he will seek Cabinet approval on Monday) has yet to generate the outrage that would probably have greeted such a proposal in the past - or the fruit is not yet ripe for the detractors.

shaw's perspective

Or, perhaps people do share Mr Shaw's perspective, as reported in the Financial Gleaner yesterday, that "the IMF has grown up, the IMF has matured".

Of course, an awareness of the global and local economic slide, which Mr Shaw cited as a substantial reason for venturing back to the IMF, will inform people's reactions. Still, we sense that common sense and more developed sensibilities are at work here.

In much the same way that anger towards the IMF seems to have dissipated, the level of anger which Jamaicans supporting the two major political parties show each other, especially at election time, has declined dramatically.

The fact that T-shirts in party colours, with candidates' faces, can be worn freely on the streets, long after campaigns have ended, is indicative of a level of tolerance which did not exist previously.

It would seem to us, then, that just as business persons seek opportunity in times of economic downturn, we should be looking to capitalise on this reduction in overt political tension. It is not inconceivable that rapprochement among communities that have been on separate sides of the political divide is possible as the flood waters of ferocious party loyalty wane.

We are not naive, of course, to believe that persons who have long viewed each others 'the enemy' in separated communities will suddenly embrace each other in lasting brotherhood and peace.

However, before the debris that marks communities' borders can be removed and the intangible but well-known 'borderlines' crossed, the political passions that have driven us in that direction must be attenuated.

It seems that, certainly, in terms of violence linked directly to political loyalties, Jamaicans are growing up and maturing. Now it is up to us to help the process along.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.