The JLP’s kinks and cute hypocrisy
CONVENTIONAL political wisdom still makes it bankable for political parties and politicians to pursue a policy of avoidance or cling to any bit of news, happenings or evidence that paint opponents in a negative light. In other words, if “milking an issue dry” makes a political party more attractive to voters or increases a politician’s chances of success, political parties and politicians are most likely, than not, to pursue such strategy.
There are many examples that come to mind, the so-called “dead babies” scandal is one example. Make no bones about it, the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) is well within its rights to present information and assume positions that best suit its political interests.
Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller’s refusal to make herself available to the press to answer questions relating to the performance of her Government is the clearest example of the policy of avoidance. The unfortunate casualties of these extreme behaviours are voters, many of whom are either low-information voters, non-issues voters, or first-time voters, who are mostly under-informed, uninformed or misinformed. It is standard political orthodoxy and practice for politicians to engage propaganda as reliable conduits to mislead or to avoid the consequences of direct confrontation, however prudent or necessary the conflict.
Aided and abetted by some political commentators, the JLP has been bending the truth about the accomplishments or a lack thereof of the People’s National Party (PNP), and twisting reality of the environment in which previous PNP administrations have had to govern. If one goes by everything the JLP has said about the 18 years (1989 – 2007) that the PNP held power, one would be inclined to believe that nothing, except socio-cultural profligacy and economic decadence, occurred during that time. It is the same spurious “wrecking ball and chain” arguments and intellectual dishonesty that has coloured assessments it has been using to discredit the PNP’s eight-year stint in Government between 1972 and 1980 and its current term in office (2012 to present).
The PNP has also been an active participant in propagating falsehood and manufacturing the shameful counterfeit. The “four missing years” argument they spout is as though it was all hell and no “powder house” during the JLP’s tenure between 2007 and 2011.
In fairness, while the PNP has criticised Seaga’s time at the crease (1980 to 1989), it has not cast the entire Seaga era as one of dismal failures or unmitigated disasters, even though some bad decisions were made and waste occurred under Seaga’s watch — the costly winter vegetable project is one example. To understand the JLP’s current approach of excusing its way out of taking responsibility for the failures of the four years (2007-2011) it held power is to accept that the party is in a crisis of denial. As such, it has to clutch at every straw in hopes of grabbing something tangible as it attempts to claw its way back to power.
It has become standard routine for the JLP — as well as for some pundits who claim absolute objectivity but without an iota of awareness of how “subjectively objective” they are — to invoke and remind all and sundry that “the JLP assumed power during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression…” While the claim is universally indisputable, it does not negate a truism about reality. One cannot play the hand one hopes for; one must play the hand one gets. Nevertheless, the criminal irony about this redundant preface is its inseparability from the JLP’s own declarations, circa March 2008. The JLP bravely pronounced that, “The fundamentals of the Jamaican economy are strong” and that “Jamaica’s tourism industry is poised to benefit immensely from the world recession…” The JLP cannot now run from its own record and stewardship. Consequently, as it gleefully owns its successes, it must not disown its failures through the use of slick modulation.
The JLP cannot use cute hypocrisy to assuage the pangs of the Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke extradition nightmare. The Dudus fiasco happened under the JLP’s watch. It cost the Jamaican economy $12 billion, in addition to the lives of over 73 people and a devaluation of Brand Jamaica’s reputation. The PNP is correct: It inherited a bad deck of cards in 2011 (economic and social) but it has to play regardless.
As this column asserted last week, context matters, and it does not matter whether it is the JLP or PNP that is in power. In addition to certain weaknesses in the macroeconomic policies of the Michael Manley Government of the 1970s, there were also significant fluctuations in crude oil prices, which triggered massive fall-offs in key sectors of the oil-dependent Jamaican economy, such as in the manufacturing sector.
It is true that global macroeconomic volatility and stagflation during the 1970s, and indeed during the 1980s, have been largely attributed to oil supply shocks. Major political and economic events, such as the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the collapse of the Organization for the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1986, caused some of these shocks. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990/91, the Asian crisis in 1997-2000 also affected the Jamaican economy. The evidence does not support the JLP’s assertion that the economic contractions and declines of the 1970s [was] “Is Manley’s fault” — to borrow from the IMF’s infamous acronym.
According to World Bank studies, there has been evidence of five crises in the world economy that local commentators and political analysts should not overlook in their assessments of the performance of the Jamaican economy, because there are direct correlations between these world events and Jamaica’s economic underperformance. In terms of capital formation, both total and fixed capital reached its lowest values of a little above 19 per cent of world gross domestic product in 2009. According to the findings, there have been four such similar dips in investments: mid-1970s, early 1980s and 1990s and early 2000s. Dips in global investment values and activities are “major characteristics of emerging and ensuing economic crises, downturns, contractions, recessions or depressions”.
Context is important, because the JLP keeps pointing to the glory days of the 1960s as the benchmark for assessing economic growth. The truth is, and according to World Bank information, “During the 50 years, between 1960 and 2010, the world gross domestic product grew at an average annual rate of 3.5 per cent, with the fastest growth of 6.4 per cent occurring in 1964. Interestingly, however, “In the mid-1970s there was a major dive in the rate of growth of the global economy, which declined more than five percentage points, from six per cent in 1973 to one per cent in 1975, before declining in 1982 to almost zero.
Context matters. We cannot adjudicate on the performance of the Jamaican economy, under any administration, without including and evaluating exogenous factors such as geopolitics upheavals. Edward Seaga was prime minister both in 1980 when Hurricane Allen hit and again in September 1988 when Hurricane Gilbert devastated Jamaica. In fact, so widespread was the damage, Seaga declared “…the country resembles Hiroshima after the dropping of the atomic bomb that ended World War II…” In its wake, Gilbert left 45 people dead and an estimated loss of US$4 billion or ($22 billion using 1988 exchange rates). Agricultural damage accounted for 40 per cent of the damage; 95 per cent of all health facilities were damaged; and 50 per cent of water facilities, pipes, tanks and pumps.
Four months later, on February 9, 1989, Michael Manley and the PNP were returned to power. Now, as great and as efficient as Seaga was in restoring order and electricity to significant sections of the country, let us not fool ourselves into believing that Jamaica’s recovery (economic or social) from the ravages of Hurricane Gilbert started and ended with Seaga and the JLP. The PNP inherited, in 1989, a country that was substantially destroyed and in economic ruin. The Government of the day had to do the best it could with the resources at hand, it did not throw up its hands and declare, “Lawd, wi dead now!” And it did not blame the Almighty for the country’s misfortunes. Instead, it set about rebuilding.
It is true that the Government acted hastily in advancing economic liberalisation and adopted the policy of deregulation without the requisite structures in place to insulate the economy from further shocks. A mix of monetary and fiscal policies, alongside poorly regulated financial institutions — cases of raw skulduggery in business practices — and high interest rates precipitated the financial crisis in the mid-1990s. The results have been painful; $40 billion was added to the national budget; the accretion was financed through a mix of additional debt and taxes.
There is more between 2001 and 2010. There were nine, yes, nine, instances of either hurricanes or tropical storms. The total cost to the country has been estimated at $111.37 billion. Of this, the infrastructure sector accounted for $51.7 billion or 46 per cent of the overall cost. At $44.4 billion, the transportation subsector (roads and bridges) bore the brunt of the expenditure. Natural disasters are equal opportunity phenomena; they hold no political persuasions.
However, during the period 2001 to 2010 the PNP Government faced hurricane damages valued at $58.5 billion, while the JLP grappled with $42.8 billion. It is evident, therefore, that we cannot measure or discuss economic performances without context, and we should not be cute or hypocritical in our assessment or accounting of things.
Burnscg@aol.com