Why not ‘5 in 4’?
BY THE time he had got to the all-important pages five, six and seven of his text last Tuesday, most of Dr Nigel Clarke’s colleagues were deep into their phones, private chats or postprandial snoozes.
Their attention span had lasted through his gracious salutations, but since he had not got to where he started bashing and blaming the PNP (except for the inadequate nod of acknowledgement to Portia and Peter), then glossing over the disastrous economic performance of the 2007-2011 administration, there was time for distraction.
They, and the nation, should have listened carefully. For the first time I can remember, a national leader spelt out the almost unique and exquisitely sensitive journey to development which Jamaica is undertaking. I applaud him.
“The point is that we need to be conscious... that we are attempting to do that which has yet not been done – to grow and develop as a nation within a liberal democratic model.” And more, “virtually all developed and advanced countries today experienced institutional illiberality of one form or another on their path to success”. And then, “Instead of engaging in endless self-flagellation as a people, we would exude greater depth of pride, fully conscious of the greatness of our ambition even as we try to implement and improve”.
We should try to grow the economy fast, inclusively and sustainably, while being faithful to our Charter of Rights, tolerant of opposition, free expression, private property rights, maximum individual liberty. Not like, China, Singapore, Cuba: breaking with our own history of repression, racism and classism; evils the USA and the UK are still struggling with.
DIFFICULT PATHWAY
Brilliant. This is the difficult pathway, the exalted aspiration, conviction of which the united, honest, not tribal-delusional effort towards, should wake up distracted MPs and energise national effort like we have never witnessed before – the cusp of our satisfaction, the envy of the world!
This odyssey ought to be the big national cause that motivates the difficult pilgrimage of a chosen people from the Egypt of our one per cent growth servitude to the promised land of opportunity for all – for ‘5 in 4’ and more. More fairness and love and, yes, more of our own cash used to care.
And then came this: “Political competition, which is central to our liberal democratic model, must, ultimately, be in service of the sustainable material progress of our people.”
Irrefutable truth, Nigel, but has our deeply and purposely divided political culture created sustainable material progress for our people?
Fifty-eight years into our independence experience, while blessing God for all the freedoms and real advances we enjoy, has sufficient material and spiritual progress come to the majority of people in north west St Andrew or central Kingston? Half the people have given up on even voting; the other half, fractured by our self-serving party fanaticism, is not so persuaded.
Nigel, why has ‘5 in 4’ failed so disastrously? Why was it that ‘1.5’ turned on itself, and on all of us, by costing us billions in new taxes and exacerbating instead of reducing, inequality? Why can’t I find hard discourse on total factor productivity, so essential to ‘prassperty’, anywhere in your worthy address?
Minister, you know by now that oftentimes party loyalty can be so seductive as to rob you of balance and objectivity. True for me, too. States of emergency which never end, clandestine efforts to enact preventive detention, chronic corruption, intentional mayhem on the streets, unbridled licence for financial institutions to rape the savings of poor people, an unforgivably flat investment in education and training despite having surplus cash. All these, and more, undermine the liberal democracy and rapid developmental goals which you champion so wisely and sincerely.
How do you and PM Andrew Holness hope to persuade us about a unified national effort to fight COVID-19, fight crime, rebuild family life or anything else, when you exclude Morais Guy from the Corona Oversight Team, only invite Fitz Jackson to the National Security Council when there is nothing sensitive being discussed, and keep Mark Golding unaware of the shifted parameters of the primary surplus so as to have intelligent Budget analysis? And hey, what happened to the Vale Royal talks?
Bigger still, given your experience over the last four years, even if you have another term in office, how do you – or the PNP, for that matter – expect the nation to achieve ‘5 in 4’, let alone the wonderful 2030 vision, without a revival of trust to ground a truly united national effort and engender purposeful individual and corporate discipline?
That was why it was so disappointing when Minister Clarke went on to his “bubbling up” spree (trumpishly defying national statistics) and the paeon of superiority over the Opposition. Political competition is important to prevent autocracy and even/or breed prime-ministerial dictatorship. It is destructive and fatal to liberal democratic ends, when it is an excuse for arrogance and exclusionary government.
This administration defines collaboration as everyone agreeing with them. Nothing no go so. The political model is not working. The toxic elements of our political culture are sabotaging our dream of real growth with equity and human flourishing.
The Budget proves that. Despite gestures to the poor; $600 a week to 30,000 destitute; money taken from needy students to fund laudable scholarships for civil servants; tax relief for micro businesses who don’t file tax returns anyway; and, necessary to repeat, little more for education and training – our only hopes.
Mark Golding responded to the minister on Thursday. His powerful effort requires separate analysis.
Having heard both, I am becoming convinced that our chances of ‘5 in 4’ and more would be much more likely if Nigel and Mark were to work together for us rather than to continue to divide us.
The question remains unanswered: why not ‘5 in 4’?