Barbados, Jamaica and the cost of political culture

THE EDITOR, Madam:

The recent comparisons between Jamaica and Barbados have stirred discomfort, but discomfort is often the beginning of honest reflection. While some commentary may be blunt, the underlying question is valid. Why has Jamaica, with its size, talent, and global influence, consistently underperformed relative to a much smaller Caribbean neighbour?

The economic record is clear. Barbados has sustained a significantly higher GDP per capita than Jamaica for decades. This gap did not arise by accident. It reflects long term choices about governance, institutions, and political behaviour.

Barbados made consensus a national strategy. Across administrations, core priorities such as education, health care, fiscal discipline, and social partnership were treated as national assets, not partisan weapons. Social contracts between labour, business, and government reduced instability and ensured policy continuity beyond election cycles.

Jamaica’s political journey has been more combative. Since the 1970s, politics has often resembled permanent warfare. Governments change, policies reverse, and development programmes stall. Progress too frequently depends on personalities rather than institutions. Loyalty has often outweighed competence, and political victory has too often been mistaken for national success.

SHARED COMMITMENT

Yet leadership alone is not the full story. Political culture is sustained by what citizens reward and tolerate. We cheer confrontation, excuse tribalism, and defend inefficiency once it wears party colours. We demand transformation while resisting the discipline required to sustain it. In that sense, Jamaica’s governance challenges are not imposed solely from above. They are reinforced from below.

This is not to deny history, inequality, or global pressures. Barbados, too, faced debt crises, IMF programmes, and economic shocks. The difference lies in how reform was framed. It was treated as a collective responsibility, communicated honestly, and anchored in institutional credibility rather than political theatrics.

Jamaica does not lack intelligence, creativity, or ambition. What we lack is consistency of purpose. Until we reject zero sum politics, demand continuity over conflict, and hold ourselves, not just our leaders, to higher standards, our potential will remain unrealised.

The comparison with Barbados should not insult us. It should confront us. Nation building is not achieved by elections alone, but by discipline, compromise, and a shared commitment to institutions that outlive political terms.

Until Jamaica chooses that path collectively, the scoreboard will continue to reflect not our capacity, but our choices.

LEVAR MCLEOD