IT may be argued successfully that something funny happened on the way to Jamaica’s road to prosperity, and that something is politics. Indeed, from as far back as one can recall, this country has had a political economy. In other words, politicians have been in the forefront of running this country in terms of determining its economic path, not the private sector. And the cynics have oftentimes stressed that our politicians are bereft of any effective management skills, which is why they have successfully and successively run this country’s economy into the ground.

One of the major drawbacks to having a political economy is that politicians more often than not play to the gallery and are not willing to make unpopular decisions. In this context, the country’s future has been frequently compromised because politics is all about winning elections — even if this means wrecking the economy. It is against this backdrop that the “run with it” approach has been condemned, but it could be that for the political parties and their leaders it is a catch- 22 situation as, without comfortable supporters, the ruling party will have difficulty getting any meaningful business done in the people’s interest.

The Portia Simpson Miller-led Administration which took office soon after the December 29, 2011 General Election — which it won handsomely — has not been given sufficient credit for the decision it took to assiduously follow the tenets as well as directives of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) even if it means losing votes. But will the governing People’s National Party have the testicular fortitude to stay the course even as it prepares for a by-election, local government elections and a general election? What makes its situation more precarious is that it has so far failed to effectively communicate to its hard-core supporters and uncommitted voters, which is not an easy task because the majority of Jamaican voters expect handouts, monetary contributions and special favours for their having voted for a particular party.

Years ago, my household helper promptly told my wife after election results favoured her party that she was leaving the job. The reason was that she did not have to work anymore because her party had won and so she was confident that she would be well taken care of financially and otherwise. It is no secret that some persons “sell” their votes and expect to be sufficiently rewarded via the public purse. There are those who are seeking to gain public office who pander to this immoral and sometimes illegal practice (voter intimidation, stuffing or convenient disappearance of ballot boxes, etc). I am told about a certain politician who, when confronted by an aggrieved constituent who had “sold” him his vote and now expected to be fully rewarded, told the angry voter, “I have already bought your vote so I owe you nothing”.

Respected pollster and political analyst, the late Professor Carl Stone, in his third book on elections and voting behaviour in Jamaica, aptly entitled Politics versus economics”, noted that prior to the 1989 General Election, which saw the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) regaining power after its crushing defeat in 1980, there was a general consensus among voters that creating more jobs for the youth and the poor, improving the education system, and building houses that poor people could afford were seen by most voters as the top priorities for any party that formed the next government. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Overall, there was a remarkable similarity in views between Jamaica Labour Party voters, PNP voters, and even the uncommitted, as to what these priorities should be.

“Other important top priorities include giving help to small farmers, improving the welfare of the poor, improving the health services, improving roads and water supplies, reducing crime, and improving workers’ low salaries.

“Given this broad consensus on mainly social priorities, the voters could be expected to make a choice mainly on which party and leader they think can best deliver on these social policy priorities. It is noteworthy that concern with social policies far outweighs concern with economic management. This may partly account for the fact that the JLP’s superior management of the economy has not emerged as the major election issue.” Style over substance?

Well, fast-forward to 2014 and it is the PNP that is now desperately seeking to prove — with the IMF wind beneath its wings — that it is the better manager of Jamaica’s perennially battered and anaemic economy. With steely resolve, Finance and Planning Minister Dr Peter Phillips has pursued the IMF agenda for economic stability and ultimately growth, with dogged resolve, to the detriment of his party’s fortunes at the polls. This scenario begs the question as to whether or not any political party can stay in power despite making unpopular decisions, going for the long haul rather than immediate gratification.

When the country’s two-term syndrome was shattered in 2011, the PNP’s victory brought into sharp focus the fact that both leading parties were fast becoming expendable — even as some now believe that based on the latest Bill Johnson polls history is about to repeat itself. But will it?

What will be at stake in 2016 is not just the fate of the PNP, but the legacy of Portia Simpson Miller. In this tortuous political environment, will she be forced to make the ultimate sacrifice of ensuring that the nation continues to take the bitter medicine that it must ingest if the bang belly economy is to be expunged once and for all? Or will she take the easier route of pandering to the people by giving them cake instead of bread? Where the Jamaican economy is now, delay can be deadly in more ways than one. And the potent question that must be asked is, can the JLP do anything different given the tight fiscal space caused by a growing mountain of debt?

History has shown in a subtle way that the Jamaican people tend to be more tolerant with a PNP Government than with a JLP Administration. But an increasingly disenchanted populace is quick to describe both the PNP and the JLP as “same difference”. In that cauldron of cynicism, Jamaica’s two-party system could suddenly find itself so debilitated and threatened that anarchy may become an attractive option.

In terms of the legislative agenda, both the JLP and PNP have been finding much common ground for consensus and this is to be encouraged. However, it is in the area of the management of the economy that they part company. But can an Audley Shaw at the helm do anything completely different than what Dr Peter Phillips is now doing? Is Jamaica becoming a fool’s paradise? I am convinced that the next general election will be the most important since 1961, when the people opted to leave the West Indies Federation inspired by Alexander Bustamante’s opportunistic bravado that led to political independence engendered by the statesmanlike vision of Norman Manley. And it will not be Portia Simpson Miller versus Andrew Holness per se. It will be politics versus economics (or vice versa). Let the games begin!

Lloyd B Smith is a member of Parliament and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the People’s National Party or the Government of Jamaica. lloydbsmith@hotmail.com