THE forces converged last week to focus my mind on the need for urgent changes in the socio-political organisation of the country. In the midst of contemplating Anthony Bourdain’s portrayal of Jamaica on CNN, September 16, a compatriot sent me his manuscript focused on our current social and economic conditions. It is not a work of fiction, and it is not intended to be a thriller, but a thoroughly researched work, grounded in historic realities, legal studies, and contemporary thinking on the relationship between social justice and economic growth. Nonetheless, I read it first; racing through each page to get as quickly as possible from one profound truth to the next, and going back to read slowly to absorb the depth and meanings of those truths.

The work points out some conveniently overlooked reasons our economy is unable to grow, and articulates why a complete social and economic transformation, grounded in constitutional reform, is needed now. He points out, for example, that “more than 50 years into Independence, and over 175 years after Emancipation, the…relationships which existed during slavery have not changed sufficiently…, and far too many people are subsisting in deep poverty on the periphery of society”.

His rationale is obvious. There is no way to grow an economy when nearly half of the population is excluded from the process. This would be the 43 per cent living below the poverty line. Many in the middle class also struggle to survive. This means limited buying power, except for the small minority at the top that over-consume foreign goods and do not do enough to reinvest in the society or help their workers out of poverty.

Former United States President Bill Clinton consistently connects better wages for workers and economic growth: “If you raise the minimum wage…it always creates jobs… people who make the minimum wage, or near it, are struggling to get by, they spend every penny they make, they turn it over in the economy, they create jobs, they create opportunity, and they take better care of their children. It’s not just the right thing to do, but it’s also very good economics.”

My friend correctly observes, however, that whenever this and other critical issues of social justice are raised here, the response is predictable and defensive. He argues, though, that “it must be accepted that one cannot build up the poor simply by pulling down the rich, but no one has to be pulled down in order for someone to be built up. Even more critically, no one has to be kept down in order for someone to be kept up…The irrefutable economic truth…is that everyone moves up whenever the base is lifted… Some persons are just too self-absorbed and retrogressive to recognise this simple fact.”

Conversations around these issues are difficult indeed; they are immediately hijacked to become personal and reductionist — about whether one likes or dislikes black people, brown people, white people, or rich people. Even people who should know better pollute the discourse, including one writer who described as “bad-minded and envious” those who talk about social justice, because “every society must have its elites”.

I agree, as long as elite means the best of the best — elite athletes, artistes, business people, scientists, and the literati, etc. What I reject completely is elitism on the basis of skin colour and privileges that have their genesis in the terrible exploitation of others. We have no control over the past, but we have control over what exists now, and what we have continued to do is to denigrate and marginalise sections of the population whose ancestors were victims of that process, and whose current conditions are largely attributable to that reality. We are truly a “monarchial contraband” — too many people trying to live like royalty on the backs of the poor — and this cuts across successive governments and the private sector.

Some of us benefit from the model which, as George Mason pointed out in a recent newspaper article, explains our defence of it, but it does not make it right, and it renders hypocritical our calls for economic growth and a progressive social order.

Now, the consciousness is awakening. A good thing would be if our leaders were to recognise this and do something other than what is akin to standing on the tracks and watching a train barrelling down without so much as a desperate wave of the hand. For, as my friend points out, change does not have to be chaotic, but: “The irony in social and economic repression is that those who stand to lose the most through rebellion, riots, revolts, and revolution are the ones who are in the best position to gain…from progressive reformation; yet they are the ones who resist the most… In a revolution, there are many losers. In a reformation, everyone can win.”

The work draws a near straight line between social transformation and economic growth. China, Brazil and South Africa are cited as examples of reform being made to enshrine social protection in their constitutions, and affirmative action, in some cases, to ensure that historically marginalised groups are brought into the mainstream. These are similar to those undertaken by Mauritius — a thriving African state fairly close in size to Jamaica. Ultimately, the goal of the soon-to-be published piece is not to be explosive nor to embarrass — though it is both explosive and embarrassing — but to urge the powers that be to begin the transformation or risk a revolt. In that regard, it is a noble effort on the part of a patriot, whose challenges also resulted in a painful forced exile.

The issues raised are directly relevant to what obtains in Portland, where residents are fighting to keep Winnifred Beach, the only one left to which the public has access. The world became more aware of the issues last week following the Bourdain special. People are writing and talking about it.

I have sent questions to the Urban Development Corporation about policies behind selling off public beaches and cutting off access to the public. Poor people need recreation too — to do something other than have sex and create more babies; the very behaviours that we condemn them for. When you take away even the beaches, what are you leaving them with?

Grace Virtue, PhD, is a social justice advocate.