The nexus between economic growth and a degraded social capital
THE budget debate that just ended was characterised by a certain sobriety on both sides of the political divide. This was undoubtedly due to the financially precarious position that the country is in, fuelled by an ongoing global recession.
Politicians and their constituencies are recognising that the cupboard is bare, or to use Dr Phillips’ metaphor, the shop is empty. There is no room for grandstanding where politicians try to outmatch the rhetoric of the opponent. These are serious times which call for great austerity. This is made even more palpable by the enormous debt burden that the country is struggling under, a situation that demands fixity of purpose and resoluteness to address. Even if it was spurred on by IMF demands, it is refreshing that the present administration is seized with the urgency of its reduction and of the need to grow, not borrow our way out of our difficulties.
In a country that has been fed for too long on a diet of borrowed money, this is not going to be easy. Both the Government and the Opposition must be seized with the urgency of helping their constituents understand what this means. They must set the right tone that will garner the collaborative effort of all stakeholders in getting us to move forward. In this regard, the prime minister must be commended for taking the high road in her presentation. This time around, her presentation was shorn of the traditional partisan rhetoric that we have become accustomed to in these debates. There are those who will argue that her presentation was short on substance, but then there is just so much that can be packed in any one debate. Budgets set the tone for the general direction in which the government intends to take the country; the fiscal priorities to be undertaken, the growth path on which the country is to be set and recognising the variables that can enhance or impede this growth. But they are limited instruments that can be easily blown up by unforeseen internal and external shocks as we have experienced throughout our history.
One of the defining features of the prime minister’s presentation was the recognition of the nexus between economic growth and a degraded social capital; that a viable economy cannot be built in an environment where there is not civility or respect for one another, and where personal responsibility leading to proper values and attitudes are nonexistent. As a champion of the poor, the prime minister was not afraid to take on a vast section of that constituency that continues to “breed” itself into poverty. She signalled that people need to be seized with a sense of personal responsibility for there is just so much that any government can do, however much it loves the poor. You can and must love the poor, but you cannot turn a blind eye to the ways in which people make themselves poor, often as a result of their own choice. This must be something that pulls at the heart of the prime minister each time she enters her constituency, for she presides over one of the poorest and most depressed constituencies in the country. Her challenge is to balance governmental largesse with the need to instil in those she has led for over 30 years that their self-esteem matters; that their humanity and sense of personhood demand more than a handout from a benevolent politician. Indeed, it is a challenge to free them from the crippling mindset that has caused them to be mired in abject poverty over the years. This cannot be done by patronage and clientelism as the late Carl Stone warned. Much more is required.
Her scathing and passionate criticism of those who sexually abuse children was spot on. This is an issue that has taken on grotesque proportions in recent times and is one that demanded public condemnation at the highest level and she delivered. This is not her call alone, but that of members of civil society, especially the church. A country that cannot protect its children is not worthy of its name. What the prime minister has done is to make the compelling argument that economic growth and societal viability cannot become a reality where there is not a moral sense of responsibility to each other. A country is not about the amount of money that swirls around at a given time, but the extent to which each person is seized with the need to protect the sacred space of the other. It is about developing viable relationships marked with integrity, respect and trust.
I hope I am not judging too early, but I have seen an emerging maturity and civility on the part of the prime minister and even among some ministers. She was needled by the Leader of the Opposition Andrew Holness when he asserted that she made promises which she did not intend to keep, only to win power. This was a clear political attack which the “former” Portia would have handled with equal partisan rhetorical flourish. If she felt like hitting back, she did not show it. She might be realising that as prime minister she holds the handle of power and she does not have to respond to every demeaning remark in kind, but to rise to a higher and more principled level. After her presentation she embraced the members of the opposite side of the House. I have not seen this done before and you may call it political showmanship, but I would rather regard it as a sign that the prime minister is intending to go in a new direction, not only being conscious that she is on a legacy road, but recognising that the country needs a paradigm shift in its governance towards a “gentler and more respectful” society as she had indicated in her inaugural address. If this is true and if this sense of governance can persist, there can be some hope that we are turning a much-needed corner to building a viable society.
stead6655@aol.com
