Jalil Dabdoub | Anancy and the politics of fear

The Gleaner’s recent report, “PNP bets on democratic socialism”, has produced the reaction one might have expected. Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) Senator Abka Fitz-Henley has warned that Jamaica cannot afford a return to the “destructive and painful policies of the 1970s”, which he attributes to the “misguided philosophy” of democratic socialism. Similar messages are reportedly being circulated by JLP MPs and ministers through community WhatsApp groups.

There is nothing wrong with the JLP opposing democratic socialism, nor with reminding Jamaicans of the very real difficulties of the 1970s.

What is objectionable is reducing one of the most complex periods in Jamaica’s modern history to a political slogan and using it to suggest that the JLP and People’s National Party (PNP) represent fundamentally different philosophies of government today.

Their ideological traditions may be different, but their approaches to governing Jamaica today are considerably less different than the political rhetoric suggests.

There is something distinctly Anancy about this type of politics: taking an old and legitimate fear, spinning it into a warning about the future, and hoping voters react before asking what is actually being proposed.

Democratic socialism, in its traditional form, contemplates a more fundamental transformation of state ownership and economic power. Social democracy accepts a market-based mixed economy while supporting active state intervention, social protection, public investment, regulation and redistribution.

DISTINCTION

That distinction is crucial because what Golding actually described included greater integration between the private and public sectors, incentives for businesses to train workers, expanded education and scholarships, and policies designed to expand economic opportunity. That sounds more like a modern social-democratic approach than a return to the economics of the 1970s.

Since Independence, governments of both parties have accepted substantial state responsibility for education, healthcare, housing, social protection, infrastructure and assistance to vulnerable citizens. Both have regulated markets, redistributed resources through taxation and public expenditure, invested in infrastructure and intervened in the economy when circumstances demanded it.

The JLP has traditionally placed greater emphasis on private enterprise, investment and market forces. The PNP has generally placed greater emphasis on social justice, redistribution and the role of the state. Those are genuine differences. But they should not be exaggerated into wholly incompatible philosophies of government.

The 1970s Manley administration pursued a far more interventionist economic programme, including greater state ownership and control of important sectors of the economy. The consequences were shortages, declining production, capital flight, high unemployment and economic dislocation.

Those policy failures must be acknowledged. But the crisis cannot honestly be explained simply by saying “democratic socialism”. International recession, the oil crisis, deteriorating external conditions also contributed, whilst domestic policy choices and political violence amplified those external shocks.

The PNP, however, did not remain frozen in 1970s economics. When Manley returned to office in 1989, his government pursued liberalisation and market-oriented reforms. Subsequent PNP administrations, like JLP governments since Independence, have operated within a mixed economy where private enterprise and market forces remain central.

COMBINED PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

The reality is that both parties have combined private enterprise and market forces with state responsibility for public services, social protection, infrastructure and national development.

It is difficult to pretend that an active state or government intervention is uniquely “socialist” and uniquely PNP. The question, then, is not whether government should have a role in the economy but how large that role should be, where it should be exercised, how it should be paid for, and whether it actually produces better outcomes.

The JLP has every right to criticise the policies of the 1970s. But it should make the economic argument rather than simply invoke the words “democratic socialism” as a political scarecrow. It should identify the policies it believes would discourage investment, reduce productivity, increase taxation or undermine fiscal discipline, and explain why.

Equally, Golding should not be allowed to hide behind labels. His clarification makes clear that he is not advocating a return to the state-dominated economics of the 1970s, but a stronger government role alongside private enterprise, investment and entrepreneurship.

That is a legitimate proposition, but it requires scrutiny. What would a Golding government actually do differently, and at what cost? How would it expand the State’s role while preserving private investment and fiscal discipline?

These are the discussions the country should be having, rather than engaging in political fearmongering by invoking the 1970s.

The parties are not identical. There are differences in priorities, economic management and policy. Jamaica’s political debate should be about those differences.

SERIOUS POLICY CHOICES

Jamaica’s problems today cannot be solved by relitigating political labels from the 1970s. Crime, healthcare, education, housing, the cost of living, productivity, corruption, governance and economic growth require serious policy choices.

So, the more uncomfortable question is this: if both parties operate within the same broad democratic and mixed economic framework, why should Jamaicans vote for one rather than the other?

The answer should be competence, integrity, leadership, economic management, policy and performance. Not fear, tribalism or political fearmongering.

Let the JLP challenge Golding’s ideas, and let Golding defend them. Let the PNP challenge the Government’s record, and let the Government defend it.

It is time for politicians to stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Jamaicans are perfectly capable of asking the basic questions: what should government do? what should it not do? how will it pay for it? and, will its policies actually work?

Both parties should trust Jamaicans enough to debate those questions honestly. The political trick is to take something true (the 1970s), spin it, and use it to frighten people about the future.

That is the Anancy in this politics: not inventing the fear but disingenuously exploiting it. Anancy nuh always haffi lie. Sometimes di trick is fi get people fi look pon di wrong ting.

Jalil Dabdoub is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.