During the time of the Michael Manley-led PNP government, a programme unpopular among media commentators and assorted uptown groups (who knew little about the realities of their own country) was the Special Impact Programme, commonly called the 'Crash Programme'.

It employed those at the economic base of the society; older men and women and those who had had little schooling.

They were mostly inner-city folk in the days when 'inner city' was known as 'the ghetto'. In the 1970s Manley had spread the message that hope was alive, that 'better mus' come' and that the 'word is love' even as the M-16 and the terrorist gunman entered our lives and began to make a change in our socio-political existence that we could have done without.

In 1976 dollars, a crash programme worker would earn $26.50 per week, and most of them who should have been bushing verges along the public roadways were seen leaning on their brooms, chatting with their colleagues while others were cooking. The media derided the programme and in doing so, it missed the bigger point.

Close to one in four Jamaicans were unemployed at the beginning of the 1970s, and Michael Manley, who had come from a socially privileged family, found reason to break ranks with the traditional behaviour of his class by immediately attacking the unemployment reality. It had to have taken strength in Manley to resist the advice of the intelligentsia and assorted technocrats and close advisers who must have been telling him how unpopular such a programme would be.

I believe he did the right thing in instituting that programme even though there were obvious negatives attached to it. First, in a situation where the workers were unsupervised or poorly supervised, little work was actually done. Second, as prime minister of the country, Manley realised that with the unemployment rate as it was and with stark socio-economic inequities existing in the country, his government was sitting on a powder keg that could explode at any minute.

With uptown Jamaica indulging itself in its favourite verandah chat about 'those lazy people leaning on their brooms', they allowed themselves to be swayed by a logic that had little currency at street level.

At that level, the harshness of poor households packed with young children going to bed at nights hungry escaped them. Uptown folk in the 1970s knew more about Miami than the brutish nature of life in a Kingston ghetto.

Manley knew that a method had to be designed to put money in those households, and the 'crash programme' was the facade that his administration came up with.

Many years later in the PJ Patterson regime, 'runnings' which allowed taxpayers' money to find itself in the pockets of the poor and powerless was seen as another form of social redress. It is something that the Seaga government of the 1980s never understood nor attempted: that effort to extract a little bit more from the taxpayer and place it in the pockets of those at the base of the society.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT?

Broadly speaking, the role of government concentrates its efforts on organising a society to avoid what it would be without effective government - anarchy. Some believe that it is the duty of government to organise a nation in such a way that the best outputs of its people will be available for the benefit of most in the population but, in a market-driven economy, for those who produced more.

But none of this can be contemplated or practised without some serious philosophical considerations.

Is government there to make the people happy or to organise for the socio-economic betterment of the nation? If a household is 'better off', are its occupants happier?

SHOULD A GOVERNMENT TELL THE TRUTH?

In any parliamentary democracy it is assumed that 'the people' are the real power. Where people are called upon, freely to place a vote periodically to elect a country's representatives, truth is of paramount importance, even if such truths are unpalatable. In the mix, however, governments are notorious for lying or just selling us convenient truths.

To my way of thinking, it is the duty of the media but moreso, the people of the country to ferret out the truth, especially in those instances where the media are seen to be allied to those interests who are considered 'anti-people'.

It is my belief that telling the truth is not a big priority on the list of items for political leaders. Oftentimes it is thought that 'simple folk' cannot handle complex truths therefore convoluted lies sometimes become one of the objectives of many governments.

The Golding-led JLP government has not been as forthcoming as many of us would have wanted, especially in terms of outlining the true state of the economy. While the government may have scored a socio-political coup on free health care and tuition in high schools, did it err economically? I share the prime minister's view that this country cannot afford not to afford free tuition in high schools, and while I welcome the fact that the poorest among us can access free health care, there is no doubt that it is straining the country economically. We need to hear more on this.

The fact that the prime minister has made himself available one day per month on radio to answer questions does indeed lessen the criticism that the government is not open enough and prone to telling lies.

And of course, at the heart of the government's objectives must be drafting the Jamaican dream, something which the Opposition leader has been talking of, not while she was prime minister when she could have started that long trip, but powerless in a party that she is leading to nowhere.

DAVID SMITH'S/OLINT'S PROBLEMS LIKELY TO INCREASE

It may seem terribly cruel to those who have been burnt in Olint, but I am concerned for David Smith.

On the occasions that I have spoken with him, the impression I get is that he always comes across as apologetic and wanting to bare more than has been told to us so far, but he pauses, unsure of whether he should speak and how much to say.

More than anything else, must let his investors have an answer to one pertinent question. Were his bits of impressive communication designed to stall or 'fool up' the many people who believed in him? This is a legitimate question in addition to the one burning up investors' minds. How much of the funds are left?

I have been speaking with some legal luminaries, and the following seems to be their early conclusion.

It appears that Smith is facing legal troubles in at least two jurisdictions - Jamaica and the Turks and Caicos Islands. In addition to the TCI troubles, the Jamaican FSC and BOJ have written to financial institutions seeking information on transactions with OLINT and its principals. This signifies the possibility of further legal action in Jamaica.

In addition, the US Department of Justice has written to the platform, FXCM, regarding an account traded by Smith on behalf of OLINT. Although it is unclear whether the US DOJ has written to any other institution, it seems unlikely that they would only target FXCM if there is an investigation of suspicious transactions and Smith had transactions with other institutions with a US nexus.

The nature of any investigation of financial crimes is that all institutions are targeted as opposed to one (since investigators are necessarily interested in a trail of money).

Finally, there are rumours that OLINT had received a licence in Panama which has been revoked (although it is unclear whether this was a generic business licence or one issued by the financial regulators there). There is a further complication since TCI is essentially a British protectorate, which raises the possibility that the British authorities are involved.

In light of this it seems clear that Smith needs legal representation in at least three jurisdictions (Jamaica, TCI, US) and possibly four (if Panama is also an issue). To date, it seems as though he has representation in only Jamaica and TCI. Moreover, he needs a coordinated multi-jurisdictional legal strategy with a concerted legal effort being managed across jurisdictions.

To do anything less is to fail to get competent legal representation. It is also a violation of his fiduciary duty to his investors.

David Smith has an obligation to provide assurances to investors that he is being competently represented.

Moreover, if there is a shortfall, he needs to indicate to investors whether his business model is sustainable, since the likelihood of his maintaining relationships with either banks or trading platforms is minimal.
This leads to at least two essential questions: How will he trade? How will he remit funds?

More specifically, if there is a shortfall, what is his plan for trading and remitting funds if he is unable to either trade or remit?

PORTIA BATTLING ON AS PHILLIPS' TEAM GROWS STRONGER

With Alston Stewart as campaign manager of the Portia Simpson Miller team in the fight for the PNP presidency, one is beginning to wonder if another attempt is not being made to run another round for PJ Patterson.

When one adds Michael Vasciannie as legal director, Easton Douglas as campaign director, Colin Campbell of Trafigura fame in charge of information, and Basil Waite as team organiser, one is hard pressed not to believe that all of these pro-PJ people are just there for the outing.

I gather that Basil Waite will be resigning his post as national organiser for the PNP to join the Portia Simpson Miller team as its organiser. I wish them well.

A key entity to watch is the Appeals Tribunal which is that body set up to give justice to, among other things, those questioning the delegate groups. The tribunal is made up of Bobby Pickersgill, A J Nicholson and Syringa Marshall- Burnett.

I have not been able to identify Marshall-Burnett as pro-Portia but AJ Nicholson is, and many believe that Pickersgill is batting for the PNP leader undercover until she loses it come September. I am not accusing the tribunal of skulduggery because it is under intense scrutiny.
The sort of scratching of groups as was done with those from South East St Ann must not be replicated and for that reason, we need to watch the Appeals Tribunal.

PORTIA MUST DEBATE WITH PETER PHILLIPS

On the night of the September general election when it became clear that the JLP had won, the PNP party leader demonstrated that she understood nothing about leadership when she refused to concede defeat.

I gather that she is planning to do the same at the PNP conference where it is expected that she will be soundly beaten by Phillips. Her failure to do so will send a message to comrades that all did not go down well and she lost unfairly.

Unlike Seaga of the JLP who had the capability to accept a Chair at UWI Mona, Simpson Miller is a professional politician who knows nothing but politics. For this reason, one begins to understand her reasons for holding on, clutching hard at what she figures is now hers by entitlement.

Her main bugbear is lack of funding, simply because she has not been able to convince any in the private sector that she is any longer a viable political entity.

She has argued that it is not her fault that the party is disunited. In saying this, she has in essence accepted that she has failed as a leader but still she is forced to cling, to clutch, to doggedly hang on to something that was always beyond her capabilities.

She has begun the spin that Peter Phillips is being funded by the same set of people who funded Golding, hoping to open up another round of divisions in the party.

In the interim, I am looking forward to hearing her debate Peter Phillips on key issues of leadership and steps to unite the once proud political party.

The sooner she goes, the better it will be for the PNP, once classified as one of this country's great institutions. Peter Phillips may not look like an Obama on stage, but he has been identified as the person best placed to bring new unity to the legacy of Norman Manley.

The Audacity of Art

Marjorie Whylie to receive Stella Gregory Award

Traditional Thanksgiving offerings at EVITAS