“… I can state unequivocally that a large per cent of those who complain and protest most are unwilling to take responsibility for anything, including their own actions.” So wrote finance minister Omar Davies in a recent letter addressing “people’s responsibility for themselves…” And he is absolutely right that “When individuals begin to assume greater responsibility for their own behaviour… then the dominant role of any politician, or any administration, in their daily lives will be reduced, as it should be.”

Dr. Davies’ comments are as applicable to nations as to individuals. And his feelings about “young men in their early 20s who bitterly complain that they need work because ’13 youth me get’” are probably similar to those of IMF and World Bank officials when countries which have borrowed and squandered billions of dollars demand the cancellation of their debts.

The truly unfortunate deserve sympathy and help. But Jamaica’s difficulties are largely self-inflicted. Thanks in part to sound monetary and fiscal policies Jamaica enjoyed a ‘miracle economy’ growth rate of 6.3% between 1952 and 1972. But decades of borrow, tax, and spend government have reduced us to true ‘third world’ status. In 1962 our per capita GDP was over 50% higher than Mauritius’s and slightly higher than Singapore’s. In 1998 it was over 50% lower than Mauritius’s and less than 6% of Singapore’s.

In 1967 Donald Sangster boasted that ‘Jamaica doesn’t need to borrow money”. But in the 1970s government debt began growing logarithmically. Between 1977 and 1985 public debt as a percentage of GDP went from 33.3% to 180.3%. Debt service as a percentage of exports went from 16.4% to 43.4%. Today Jamaica has one of the world’s largest proportionate budget deficits. The total national debt of over $400 billion represents more than 170% of national income and debt repayment consumes over 60% of the current budget.

In a sense this debt burden is the Jamaican people’s fault, since they keep voting for ‘borrow and spend’ policies. No Jamaican party has ever been elected on a belt-tightening austerity campaign. But our politicians have been most unstatesmanlike in dealing with debt. Surreptitious central bank borrowing in the 1980s and government loan guarantees to large corporations in the 1990s made the problem even worse than it seemed.

The 17^th century historian Alexander Tyler claimed that "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." History has proven him wrong. Western Europe and North America are the world’s richest and most democratic regions. But he was right in one sense. Democracy only works when the average man is educated enough to link long term cause and effect and realizes that spending more than you earn bankrupts both individuals and nations.

In poorly educated countries only restraint by politicians can prevent lowest common denominator populism. ‘Rape the rich’ policies are inevitably disastrous in the long run but often win favour with the destitute ignorant. Idi Amin’s expulsion of Asian Ugandans and confiscation of their property was massively popular among African Ugandans. And even though it decimated the Ugandan economy, which is only just now 25 years later recovering, there was a very strong sentiment among the masses in neighbouring Kenya for a similar program there. (Of course greedy merchants with no sense of social responsibility practically invite such irrational but gut level satisfying demagoguery, especially if they are a visible minority.)

Jamaica is a moderately educated country and has suffered a moderate kind of populism. Our politicians have not quite been willing to sacrifice everything to maintain power – a free press, rule of law and regular elections are held sacrosanct by all. But neither have they been prepared to make a tacit agreement among themselves to allow a government to make unpopular but absolutely necessary structural adjustments.

A country cannot become prosperous without a ‘capital foundation period’ where it invests much more than it consumes and spends substantially more on education and infrastructure than distributive social programs. This indispensable groundwork normally requires both time and a populace sufficiently educated to endure short term pain for long term gain. To transform themselves quickly countries usually require a period of non-democratic authoritarianism coupled with a full commitment to market forces, a la Chile, Singapore and even colonial Hong Kong. Of course most dictators like to control everything, including the economy.

As long as a large segment of Jamaicans are willing to compromise their children’s education for bashment clothes, politicians will continue to win elections with ‘white rum and curry goat’ promises. Providing our population keeps becoming more educated - and we do spend a relatively high percentage of GDP on education - Jamaica’s long run prospects are not too dim. But no truly democratic government outperforms its people for long, though some do worse.

Omar Davies’ assertions about responsibility are directly at odds with his ministry’s bailout of the financial sector. Perhaps some liquidity injection was necessary. But surely the unscrupulous should have suffered the consequences of their careless greed. Yet not a single big shot has gone bankrupt or been jailed. Why were some entities saved and others left to collapse? Why were many left in charge of companies they practically destroyed? Since FINSAC cloaks itself in the ‘banking secrecy act’ the public has no idea. And after wasting billions of tax-payers’ dollars keeping the well connected solvent, the government simply borrowed billions more overseas to balance its budget. 

Having our foreign debt forgiven would obviously make life in Jamaica a lot easier. But do we deserve leniency? Had the borrowed money been spent on education, health, justice and roads we would not be in our dismal situation. But less than 50% of aid actually benefits the people. And though our fiscal deficit is alarmingly large, the government still wastes money on non-productive crash programs. If our debts were forgiven we would probably end up right back where we are. Nations, like children, generally only learn the hard way.

And when countries begin to assume greater responsibility for their own behaviour, then the dominant role of overseas lenders in their daily lives will be reduced, as it should be. changkob@hotmail.com