ACCORDING to prime minister and Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leader Andrew Holness, the general election expected in December will be a “referendum” on the economic policies and actions needed to get the agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) back on track.

The comment came in an interview with Garfield Burford on CVM TV’s current affairs programme Direct last Wednesday night and followed similar sentiments at the JLP’s annual conference at the National Arena last Sunday when he declared that there was “only one path to success” for Jamaica at this time.

But as the country waits for the prime minister to announce the election day which, he said, must be sometime “this year”, we are yet to hear precisely what is the question on the “referendum” and what is the “one path” to sustained economic growth and human development — a path that has apparently been hidden from a succession of Jamaican leaders for most of our near 50 years of political independence.

In his speech Sunday following his acclamation as JLP leader as well as in the CVM interview, Mr Holness, uncharacteristic of political leaders seeking power, refrained from promises and suggested that there are tough choices ahead for the Government to deliver on the targets outlined in the IMF programme. What the country needs from the prime minister is the truth about the choices.

Under a 27-month agreement signed with the IMF early in 2010 Jamaica can draw down US$1.3 billion from the IMF if the country meets quarterly targets while, at the same time, being on track to meet some medium-term goals. The IMF ‘seal of approval’ also opens the way to another US$1-billion from other lenders like the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.

The first three reviews went well, even with the occasional hiccup. The fourth and fifth reviews (December 2010 and March 2011) have not been conducted and there is no date as to when this may happen. Subsequent reviews are not even being contemplated.

Why the impasse? According to the head of the IMF in Jamaica, the Government has not been able to come up with a credible programme for submission to the board of the IMF.

Specifically, the Government will have to show that it has the will and the way to reduce the public sector wage bill to agreed levels; that it will implement major reforms of the public sector; that it has enough surplus (after expenses) to reduce the stock of debt by paying down on the principal; and that it will reform the tax system to spread the burden equitably while increasing revenue by drastically reducing waivers granted to some taxpayers.

Before we vote, the JLP Government must state clearly what is required; what sort of pain we are in for and how the burden will be shared.

Will reducing the wage bill require lay-offs of civil servants? When, and by how much will civil servants be asked to contribute to their pension? What will rationalisation of the public sector mean for the range of services now provided by the State? Will a new JLP Government backtrack on their 2007 election promise and re-introduce user fees in hospitals and public schools?

It is not enough for the prime minister to assert his commitment to getting the programme back on track, or to assert that we have to stop depending on other people’s money. If he wants it to be a referendum — and I think it should be — we need full and truthful information in order to make rational choices.

Mr Holness told Labourites last week that the country has limited options. “If they [the PNP opposition] were in our shoes they would be doing the same thing [because] there is only one path to success.” Is he right?

PNP must lay out its cards

Dr Peter Phillips, campaign director for the PNP and spokesman on finance, was correct in his recent statement that, “In relation to the economy, we are best assisted as a country in having full transparency, and we have not had a transparent discussion about the choices and the economic issues that are confronting the country”. But we need to hear from both sides.

The PNP must say what they will do if they form the government. They cannot expect to get away with statements to the effect that they have not been forthcoming with policy details for fear that the JLP will steal their ideas. That simply cannot wash. We have waited too long for details about the JEEP (Jamaica Emergency Employment Programme).

At the PNP’s annual conference last September, party president Portia Simpson Miller said that a PNP government would renegotiate the agreement with the IMF. What does this mean? Would the party be asking for more time to achieve the targets? Would they seek to lower some targets in view of the fact that the global economic situation has worsened since the deal was inked?

Also, Mrs Simpson Miller has promised to reverse the GCT on electricity bills — a move which would help many beleaguered consumers and assist the business sector to be more competitive. But so far, there are no details on how she would make up the consequential shortfall in revenue.

In the polls ahead of the elections most attention has, naturally, focused on the personal ratings of Mr Holness and Mrs Simpson Miller as well as the party standings, with all polls showing that the two major parties are in a statistical dead heat.

Less attention has been paid to voter responses which say that the economy is their main concern. The pain of declining living standards and joblessness is evident despite the evidence of macro-economic stability and modest economic growth this year after 14 straight quarters of decline.

In these circumstances, as well as the ‘referendum’ statement by the prime minister, civil society must insist that both parties subject themselves to serious debate on these and related issues. There has been too much political dancing in the discussions in the National Debates Commission.

Up to Thursday, details of the dance steps were not forthcoming, though the parties were scheduled to meet Friday to discuss what was reported to be a compromise proposal for three debates — a 60-minute debate between the party leaders and two 90-minute debates including one on finance and the economy.

For weeks both sides have been positioning themselves for advantage. This is natural because the political risks and rewards of participating in election debates are difficult to assess. If indeed the parties are in a statistical dead heat, performance in debates could prove crucial, although it is hardly likely to be the decisive factor affecting the outcome.

If nothing else, debates force contending candidates and parties to clarify their thinking on the issues of concern to voters. Both sides know what the issues are; what the voters don’t know is what the JLP and the PNP intend to do to address them.

kcr@cwjamaica.com