Christopher Tufton, Contributor
SO THE Local Government elections are behind us and the voters have spoken. Eight months after the People's National Party (PNP) Government was given a mandate to lead, there is clear dissatisfaction with that party's stewardship. Why?
A BUDGET OF DISAPPOINTMENTS
To begin with, the last budget offered little hope and greater hardships for the average consumer and voter. With a $13.8 billion tax package including a widening of the GCT net and a cess on imports, a devaluation of the Jamaican currency and increased interest rates, consumers are already paying higher prices for goods and services, with no signs of new economic expansion and opportunities.
So, despite the talk of 'solid achievements', Jamaicans have more pointedly responded to the expression 'he who feels it knows it'.
And this budget ensured that all Jamaicans are feeling the harsh economic times; whether you are a student, mother, or producer.
And so, as expected, and confirmed in the recent Don Anderson polls, Jamaicans representing a wide cross-section of the society, are for the most part dissatisfied with the recent budget and its implications, and the general state of affairs within the country.
UNCONVINCING ARGUMENTS
Published in The Gleaner a few weeks before the elections, the survey confirmed that 90 per cent of Jamaicans are opposed to the new GCT measures and just under 62 per cent are of the view that the budget was just "not a good one". Coming so soon after a fourth term mandate the question being asked by many voters seems to be, is this what we voted for in October 2002?
Recognising the public mood, the PNP's election machinery attempted to shift the emphasis to local issues and Local Government reform. Further, they attempted to position the JLP as non-believers, even destroyers of the Local Government process. It is now clear that the electorate did not buy into this theory.
Further, the PNP's talk of Local Government reform rang hallow in the ears of the Jamaican voter, largely because it is yet to filter down in the form of tangible benefits to communities and constituents.
This after a decade since the Patterson administration admitted in Ministry Paper 8/93 that "fundamental reform of Local Government has been on the agenda for the last 50 years, during which period seven studies have been conducted on the subject few of these recommendations have been accepted and/or implemented."
In 1994, this same Government launched the Local Government Reform Unit. Ten years on and some $90 million dollars later, most Jamaicans are still wondering when these reforms will translate in benefits to them.
With all the hype around the PNP's anthem of being the vanguards of local government, it means little to communities characterized by poor roads, no water, and young school leavers hopelessly wondering about their future prospects.
POLITICS OF ARROGANCE
To add insult to injury, the Government's posturing leading up to the polls demonstrated an absence of humility and what appears to have been an abundance of arrogance. The Prime Minister was strident in his reminders to voters that whatever happened in the local elections he would still be Prime Minister. What was he trying to say?
Among voters, one interpretation was that this was a subtle threat to Jamaicans, that given our political process and culture, he would still control the distribution of resources which could be used to reward loyalty and by extension punish decency. Remember that infamous phrase; politics is about the distribution of scarce benefits and spoils.
In the period leading up to the elections, Mr. Patterson seemed desperate; the political animal, clinging to whatever he could use to sway voters.
He reminded the voters in western Jamaica how disappointed he was with the results of October 2002, admonishing them to correct their actions in June 2003. In all this Mr. Patterson seemed totally oblivious to the people's frustrations and disappointments.
For the astute political person that he is, this time he appeared out of touch, arrogant and outdated.
So on June 19, the majority of four out of every 10 voters felt motivated to express their feelings at the polls against the PNP, leaving the remaining six motivated to remain at home in silent protest.
Even hard core PNP supporters were happy to express their displeasure at their Government by not voting or by supporting a JLP candidate. More than 120,000 Jamaicans who voted for the PNP in the October polls did not vote PNP on June 19.
IT'S THE ECONOMY
With good reason, Jamaicans are concerned about their future and about the fact that their Government appears unresponsive. Further, after 17 years of controlling Local Government and 14 years of controlling central Government there are signs of more failures than successes from the administration.
Take our debt burden as an example. In 1991, Jamaica had a total public debt stock of $43 billion. In 2002 that figure has climbed to over $600 billion.
So we currently pay approximately 65 cents of every dollar earned to service debt or over $460 million each day.
Needless to say, this has undermined our capacity to manage our affairs; to maintain roads, schools and hospitals. Now, even our lenders are weary of committing to further lending.
The word from the American rating agency, Moody's, is that Jamaica is now an even greater credit risk. Standard and Poor's shared similar news a few months earlier. So did Creditsights and others.
In a snap shot, the picture is that Jamaica has not done enough to manage its mounting debt burden. We, therefore either have to consume less or, more preferably, we have to find ways to earn more.
The Government's response seems to be to tax an already overburdened taxpayer and to discourage productive activity by taxing raw material and capital goods. Where is the vision?
In one sense these ratings may force us to live within our means. On the other hand, this can't be good news for the Government as these ratings have sent a signal to our international creditors that we are a greater risk factor and therefore higher interests must be charged on any loans we are successful in securing. The implications of all this are likely to be even further debt, and an even harsher investment climate.
A month ago the Bank of Jamaica was quite clear in its position that it will continue to maintain a tight monetary policy to stem any further slide in the value of the local currency. Among other things, the implications here are interest rates that are not likely to promote competitive productive activities.
Given the poor track record of this Government, in regards to achieving economic growth, the prospects are at best disconcerting.
UNDERMINING ITS LEGITIMACY
Further, all indications suggest that the Government is miscalculating the political mood of the people, asking it to make sacrifices while not being willing to lead by example.
Firstly by awarding itself pay rises of over 80 per cent (some estimates suggests over 100 per cent), setting a precedence which others are likely to follow. How does the Government now tell workers that they should exercise restraint, particularly in a context of rising prices?
The facts are that sound economic management dictates that any increase in salaries must be accompanied by at least proportionate increases in productivity. Was any consideration given to this fact in regards to the public sector? There is justification in arguing that too many areas of the public sector are oversized and inefficient.
With the Government awarding itself this massive increase do they now posses the legitimacy to link pay increases to productivity? There are clear signs that this is not likely to occur. The Prime Minister has made his intentions clear. His Cabinet is as lean as it can be, even if the Nettleford Report suggests otherwise. Further, Dr. Omar Davies's admission of financial imprudence leading up to the October 2002 elections is hardly a confidence builder, for investors and consumers who must now pay higher taxes and increased prices. At the end of the day, the electorate are left to ponder their future, in a context where the current perception and reality is that they are being led by a Government that is complacent, ignorant and/or arrogant. Whichever the reason, this has set the stage for a season of
discontent.
Dr. Chris Tufton is a lecturer in the Department of Management Studies, UWI, and General Secretary for Generation 2000. Please send comments to cctufton@yahoo.com
