Tweet
'Taking Responsibility'
Lance Robinson
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Lance Robinson
In March 1996, the government undertook to prepare what was then billed as a comprehensive long-term strategic plan to steer the country to prosperity. This was undertaken by Professor Donald Harris of Stanford University and was called the National Industrial Policy (NIP). The plan incorporated some very ambitious economic goals of growth, investment and planning.
Ten years later, because of what would seem like a lack of political will, little or no in-depth planning or implementation and an absence of the human and financial resources to move forward, this plan remains as a wish list, gathering dust on the shelves of the prime minister's office.
Today, we now have the recently formed think tank of qualified professionals who have come together with a view to analysing our recent economic performance (or lack of it), and utilising their findings to move us forward in much the same fashion as the NIP proposed and using the name
"Taking Responsibility". This, one might add, is a laudable undertaking and has the potential to provide the foundation of very positive economic growth in Jamaica's future. However, one cannot help but reflect on what is their questionable and flawed economic analysis of Jamaica since independence and the various conclusions at which they have arrived.
Of all the economic indicators that are monitored in the successful governance of any country, the most important one is economic growth. This takes place when the economic expertise and entrepreneurial skills of that country are brought together in a cohesive and concentrated effort to maximise production and minimise cost, thus creating excess or wealth. This growth, in turn, manifests itself in just about every facet of governmental operations of that country. It provides the means whereby it can meet its obligations both locally and internationally and so move forward with its development.
By any measure whatever, this is what took place in Jamaica in the 1960s and was achieved not by accident but through an enlightened economic philosophy and proper planning. It can always be disputed, however, whether or not this wealth was distributed down through the various economic strata of the society in an even-handed manner. But in very few countries, in the free-market, free-enterprise system, is this ever the case. The overriding and important factor is that growth was achieved. Its distribution remains a separate consideration.
As history would attest, the attempts to address or rectify these perceived inequities of the '60s, through social experimentation in the '70s, were met with abject failure on both the economic and social fronts. And for our think tank therefore to be drawing any moral or economic equivalence to these two periods in Jamaica, is completely disingenuous and borders on the dishonest.
What took place in the '70s in Jamaica was so debilitating to the body politic of the nation that it remains debatable as to whether we have recovered from its consequences even today. Perhaps our greatest setback from that period was the polarisation of our people into political and social tribes, with the unity that has eluded us for so long being only occasionally experienced in cricket and soccer.
It has been said that the debacle which occured in the '70s should not be blamed wholly on Michael Manley and that outside forces were at work. Because of his adversarial stance with the US, it was indeed possible, even likely, that the CIA, knowing what they were capable of, did have a hand in trying to destabilise his regime. We will never know for sure. It is also possible, as is claimed by some, that the local business community, because of dire shortages, may have conspired to manage their inventories in a way that would embarrass the government further. Here again, we can only speculate.
Mr Manley's greatest enemy, however, was himself. One did not have to be a genius to conclude that over time, rampant overspending and distribution combined with what seemed like total inability to produce or create wealth, would ultimately lead to a major deficit that would spell disaster for the economy and the country as a whole. My Manley, in his own inimitable style, became the victim of his own excesses with socialist policies that would eventually become the noose that triggered his demise.
Also, for the think tank to imply that we the people must all take responsibility for whatever transpired in the past may sound like good politics to a good many people. However, this is nothing more than cheap propaganda by political blame-game tacticians who have been around for a long time and who, instead of taking responsibility, look continuously for scapegoats.
Jamaica's decaying social and economic condition today cannot and should not under any circumstance be laid at the feet of the people.The people do not control the power or the resources of the state. The leadership does, and although it is the people who have put them there, the responsibility for good, honest and capable governance lies ultimately with the leaders. If indeed we were guilty of major errors in judgement, then it is absolutely essential that the causes of those errors and those responsible be identified before we can move forward.
Furthermore, many of the same people who perpetrated the economic and social havoc on this nation in the past, not only still remain in power today but also remain in strenuous denial as to the truth of what actually transpired then. How then can we carve out any path of truth, honesty and economic integrity for the future of our nation without first effecting a complete change of leadership in the country? The status quo cannot be preserved or manicured if healing and closure are to be brought to the festering wounds of the past that still remain.
To move forward in any meaningful way, we must have a full accounting of where we are coming from, what went wrong and who were the parties that were responsible. South Africa had a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to expose their ills, identify the perpetrators and so cleanse the past. This was absolutely necessary to allow for complete healing, and Jamaica should settle for no less. If we cannot come to terms with the mistakes of the past, then we will be condemned by history to repeat them.
Lance Robinson is a freelance journalist. [email protected]
Lance Robinson
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Lance Robinson
In March 1996, the government undertook to prepare what was then billed as a comprehensive long-term strategic plan to steer the country to prosperity. This was undertaken by Professor Donald Harris of Stanford University and was called the National Industrial Policy (NIP). The plan incorporated some very ambitious economic goals of growth, investment and planning.
Ten years later, because of what would seem like a lack of political will, little or no in-depth planning or implementation and an absence of the human and financial resources to move forward, this plan remains as a wish list, gathering dust on the shelves of the prime minister's office.
Today, we now have the recently formed think tank of qualified professionals who have come together with a view to analysing our recent economic performance (or lack of it), and utilising their findings to move us forward in much the same fashion as the NIP proposed and using the name
"Taking Responsibility". This, one might add, is a laudable undertaking and has the potential to provide the foundation of very positive economic growth in Jamaica's future. However, one cannot help but reflect on what is their questionable and flawed economic analysis of Jamaica since independence and the various conclusions at which they have arrived.
Of all the economic indicators that are monitored in the successful governance of any country, the most important one is economic growth. This takes place when the economic expertise and entrepreneurial skills of that country are brought together in a cohesive and concentrated effort to maximise production and minimise cost, thus creating excess or wealth. This growth, in turn, manifests itself in just about every facet of governmental operations of that country. It provides the means whereby it can meet its obligations both locally and internationally and so move forward with its development.
By any measure whatever, this is what took place in Jamaica in the 1960s and was achieved not by accident but through an enlightened economic philosophy and proper planning. It can always be disputed, however, whether or not this wealth was distributed down through the various economic strata of the society in an even-handed manner. But in very few countries, in the free-market, free-enterprise system, is this ever the case. The overriding and important factor is that growth was achieved. Its distribution remains a separate consideration.
As history would attest, the attempts to address or rectify these perceived inequities of the '60s, through social experimentation in the '70s, were met with abject failure on both the economic and social fronts. And for our think tank therefore to be drawing any moral or economic equivalence to these two periods in Jamaica, is completely disingenuous and borders on the dishonest.
What took place in the '70s in Jamaica was so debilitating to the body politic of the nation that it remains debatable as to whether we have recovered from its consequences even today. Perhaps our greatest setback from that period was the polarisation of our people into political and social tribes, with the unity that has eluded us for so long being only occasionally experienced in cricket and soccer.
It has been said that the debacle which occured in the '70s should not be blamed wholly on Michael Manley and that outside forces were at work. Because of his adversarial stance with the US, it was indeed possible, even likely, that the CIA, knowing what they were capable of, did have a hand in trying to destabilise his regime. We will never know for sure. It is also possible, as is claimed by some, that the local business community, because of dire shortages, may have conspired to manage their inventories in a way that would embarrass the government further. Here again, we can only speculate.
Mr Manley's greatest enemy, however, was himself. One did not have to be a genius to conclude that over time, rampant overspending and distribution combined with what seemed like total inability to produce or create wealth, would ultimately lead to a major deficit that would spell disaster for the economy and the country as a whole. My Manley, in his own inimitable style, became the victim of his own excesses with socialist policies that would eventually become the noose that triggered his demise.
Also, for the think tank to imply that we the people must all take responsibility for whatever transpired in the past may sound like good politics to a good many people. However, this is nothing more than cheap propaganda by political blame-game tacticians who have been around for a long time and who, instead of taking responsibility, look continuously for scapegoats.
Jamaica's decaying social and economic condition today cannot and should not under any circumstance be laid at the feet of the people.The people do not control the power or the resources of the state. The leadership does, and although it is the people who have put them there, the responsibility for good, honest and capable governance lies ultimately with the leaders. If indeed we were guilty of major errors in judgement, then it is absolutely essential that the causes of those errors and those responsible be identified before we can move forward.
Furthermore, many of the same people who perpetrated the economic and social havoc on this nation in the past, not only still remain in power today but also remain in strenuous denial as to the truth of what actually transpired then. How then can we carve out any path of truth, honesty and economic integrity for the future of our nation without first effecting a complete change of leadership in the country? The status quo cannot be preserved or manicured if healing and closure are to be brought to the festering wounds of the past that still remain.
To move forward in any meaningful way, we must have a full accounting of where we are coming from, what went wrong and who were the parties that were responsible. South Africa had a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to expose their ills, identify the perpetrators and so cleanse the past. This was absolutely necessary to allow for complete healing, and Jamaica should settle for no less. If we cannot come to terms with the mistakes of the past, then we will be condemned by history to repeat them.
Lance Robinson is a freelance journalist. [email protected]