Thu | Jan 9, 2025

Reflecting on responsibility and Independence

Published:Sunday | June 19, 2011 | 12:00 AM
Simpson Miller

Robert Buddan, POLITICS OF OUR TIME

Last Wednesday, Portia Simpson Miller gave the third in a series of Prime Ministerial Reflections on nearly 50 years of Jamaica's Independence. Her reflections followed those by Edward Seaga in April and P.J. Patterson in May. The series was put on by the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies (SALISES) of the University of the West Indies, headed by Professor Brian Meeks. It was organised by Professor Trevor Munroe as chair of the Governance Committee of SALISES in charge of the 50:50 series.

Mrs Simpson Miller's reflections came the day after the release of the long-awaited Manatt commission of enquiry report. The report spoke to the conduct of the current prime minister, Bruce Golding, during this Manatt-Coke affair. The day after its release, Mr Golding went on a week's vacation. It is a good time for him to reflect on the real truth of his involvement in that scandal. His time will come when he will be asked to reflect on Jamaica's Independence. In the meantime, others will do so. What will they think?

They will ask how we got to that sad episode and what it has cost the country over 40 years. They will ask what kind of a society we are when we knew about the 40 years of criminal-political links but allowed them to push crime rates to among the highest in the world. They will ask how we face crises. Do we shun the truth, blame others and respond with in-your-face official lies and denials. They will ask what we need to do to fix this kind of society, and the politics of its powerful classes.

The questions are not at some high level of sociological enquiry. Last Friday, the World Bank's Country Economic Memorandum Report, presented through the Department of Economics at the UWI, concluded that first among the three core constraints that have stalled Jamaica's economic growth over the past 40 years was crime. You would not have guessed this from the Manatt report. The 40-year cost of crime should cause us to do a lot of reflecting about the coming decades and what we will put up with.

The Reflections So far

I suspect that for the next few weeks, the country will be embroiled in asking questions about our politics and society. They will be responding for good or for bad. But what have the past prime ministers reflected on about the first 50 years?

Edward Seaga divided the decades after Independence into decades of growth and decades of decline. The decades of growth were, of course, those in which the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) was in power. The decades of decline were those of the People's National Party (PNP). He was harsh on the West Indies Federation, democratic socialism, and the Patterson period. But he was also critical of the Economic Partnership Agreement entered into by the Golding administration, saying it would increase inequality between developed and developing countries.

Mrs Simpson Miller warned against all partisans who divide our achievements and failures between the party we like and the one we don't. She said that if we are to be more successful over the next 50 years, we will have to build on our successes, and there have been important successes by both parties. She said there must be continuity with what works. She gave examples like working for internal self-government and Independence; the Electoral Advisory Committee/Electoral Commission; the National Insurance Scheme and Board; the National Housing Trust; constitutional reform, including the Charter of Rights, honouring Labour Day and National Heroes Day, among many significant others.

Mr Patterson did not commit Mr Seaga's error. He spoke about the challenges that both party administrations faced over the 50 years and how they responded. For example, Jamaica's economy started to run out of steam by the middle of the 1960s when the sugar and manufacturing sectors peaked and then went into decline and the country's trade deficit became negative by 1971. One couldn't neatly fit all the negatives into the period of democratic socialism.

If migration was a symptom of hard times and one wanted to fit hard times under one party and not the other, then Mr Patterson could have done so. Migration from Jamaica was higher under the JLP in the 1960s and 1980s than it was under the PNP in the 1970s and 1990s. Indeed, the World Bank's Country Economic Memorandum Report referred to above said the second of the three core constraints to have stalled Jamaica's economic growth over the past 40 years was "deficient human capital".

Without politicising the numbers on migration, Mrs Simpson Miller did argue that migration and the loss of human capital were among the four major obstacles to unlocking sustainable growth after independence. The human resources needed to build strong communities and institutions were drained in what we now call the brain drain. Deficient human capital also means lack of trained or skilled workers and professionals. But even those trained have to be available.

Mr Patterson also spoke about the urban drift, migration and the rise in unemployment. But his point was not that this was because the JLP was in power in the 1960s. It was that though we had substantial economic growth in the 1950s and 1960s, unemployment continued to increase, and it rose despite growing migration. His point was that we therefore needed a new model to transform our economic and social structures, and that was already evident during the '60s period of growth.

Hindsight, Insight, Foresight

The purpose of the prime ministers' reflections was to gain insight from the past about what we did well and what we did not do well in order to apply foresight towards building the future. This was Mrs Simpson Miller's point of departure, because she spoke as someone who expects to be prime minister again. Her presentation centred on three core values that guide her politics and personal convictions: freedom, people and progress.

It is the innate desire for freedom that drives people to seek independence and to have new expectations of their rights. It is people (and their rights and freedoms) that parties must therefore serve. People (universally) must come first, not party. Progress happens when parties, governments and societies usher in independence, and when independence makes progress for people.

But the formula for success does not end there. It is when people, nation and party take responsibility that the motor of progress charges up. Taking responsibility is the fuel that drives history forward. For those who want an economic, social and political programme for the future to create jobs, economic growth, and generally a healthier, safer, and more productive society, the programmes exist. But they will get nowhere, and many great ones have got nowhere, because though people, nation, party, and government are the key individual movers and shakers, they have not always taken the responsibility of leadership.

So, we come back to the Manatt commission report. Does it show that we are ready to take responsibility? Will society force those responsible to suffer the consequences? Will the prime minister take responsibility for what is easily the greatest display of governmental misconduct in the 50 years since Independence?

Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm.