Bruce’s game-changer may become Portia’s reality check
Jamaicans love good speeches as much as they do prolific speakers. Understandably, therefore, many continue to feel that Prime Minister Bruce Golding gave the most abstemious presentation in the just concluded 2011/2012 budget debate. Ironically, his presentation was neither inspirational nor aspirational and did not provide a discernible blueprint for achieving long-term economic development, social reforms or sustainable economic growth; but his contribution reflected an honest and reasonable assessment of Jamaica’s economic challenges. Politically, though, Bruce will still have problems reconnecting with the mainstream that continues to harbour significant doubts about his suitability as prime minister – from the point of view of credibility.
Nevertheless, his clever use of the “game-changer” metaphor could prove politically beneficial to him and should not be taken lightly because, although he has been “hoisted by his own petard” on many occasions, he still manages to retain critical private sector support for his administration’s programmes. Those who downplay this do not understand the dynamics of Jamaican politics or the value of this relationship in achieving political recapitalisation. Therein lies the dilemma for the People’s National Party, whose senior officers must huddle for serious ideation on economic innovation. For if Jamaica is to move forward, the “government-in-waiting” cannot slip-slide its way back to power – it must earn it.
It is against this backdrop that I found aspects of the Opposition Leader’s budget presentation to be rather limiting. Her speech did not inspire much hope. Its focus on the poor was politically shrewd, but struck me as too patronising. Mrs Simpson Miller spoke about food price increases and enunciated the effects these were having on the poor. While this is undeniably true, she did not propose bold alternatives. In other words, she did not say what a PNP government would have done differently. Would it consider, for instance, reinstituting price controls, as the Mexican government did in 2009 to cushion the increases on its society? Moreover, if it does, where would the money come from to finance these subsidies? What would such an approach do to the free-market economic model we currently follow?
These are legitimate questions. The PNP should have contemplated these things and worked through bankable solutions ahead of criticising the government for the price increases – knowing that 48 per cent of the items on the list that the Opposition Leader presented were either direct imports, or had imported contents. The other section of Portia’s presentation that I found disingenuous was her focus on poverty. I found it strange that she did not contextualise the reasons for the increase in the number of people who have been pushed into poverty. To begin with, and while upward price movement is not the sole driver for the increase in poverty levels, the United Nations just released its findings, which estimate that 44 million people have been pushed into poverty since June 2010 because of rising food prices.
In fairness to Sista P, she did say, “We (PNP) always acknowledge the global economic situation”, but if the PNP does take cognisance of these global shifts, then why did the party not qualify its observations? I hope I am wrong, but somehow I sense that not enough group collaboration went into her presentation. This would be unfortunate and could change the narrative, given public perception that the PNP is not ready to assume state power. However, if the PNP top brass does nothing to dislodge this feeling, it could make the party appear more reactive and less proactive. Having said that, the conversation cannot always be about where the PNP left things in 2007, because if 2007 is the only year in the party’s 18-year rule that it can pinpoint, or describe as economically momentous, then the party has some serious explaining to do.
For while the PNP achieved some successes during its tenure, there were many failures caused by poor judgement, such as its untidy handling of the liberalisation of the economy in the early 1990s, which continues to be like an albatross around the country’s neck. The narrative cannot be about political magnification as a monitor to show how bad things have been. It must be about how to harmonise ideas and construct a credible plan for the country. We will not get there if we cannot even trust the statistics presented in Parliament. Our finance minister cannot allow ebullience to cause him to overstate the NIR balance by US$400 million. And despite the fact that numbers have a bikini-like quality to them as “what they reveal is interesting, but what they conceal is vital”; data obtained from STATIN (see table below) show that 79,200 fewer people were employed in Jamaica at the end October 2010 than were employed at the end of October 2007.
Jamaica’s Main Labour Force Indicators (Employed)
Oct-07 — Oct-08 — Oct-09 — Oct-10
Employed People 1,170,200 — 1,167,800 — 1,112,200 — 1,091,000
Year-Over – Year Decline (2,400) — (55,600) — (21,200)
Total Decline In # of Employed (Oct 2007-Oct 2010) (79,200)
That aside, the 2011/12 budget offers little hope. What it does offer is a tonne of recycled ideas that cannot be converted into useful energy. Therefore, despite Audley Shaw’s bullish, “raw-meat” throwing presentation and Omar Davies’ pernickety-laced critique, we are nowhere close to an omnibus plan of bankable ideas. The prime minister is right and should heed his own advice that “the people’s interests are not best served by the current approach” to the annual budget exercise. There is nothing in the budget that provides impetus to the economy to enable it to earn more revenue and foreign exchange, and there is no imminent “big-bang” development project after the IMF agreement expires that could generate employment. There is nothing about energy, innovation or educational development that could boost competitiveness, and there is nothing to make parents feel hopeful that they will bequeath a prosperous country to their children and grandchildren.
Burnscg@aol.com