Dear Editor,

Those who suggest that it does not matter whether the JLP or the PNP wins the December 29 election, as there is “no difference” between the parties on the issue of managing the country’s economy should read Mr Edward Seaga’s autobiography and think again.

On the subject of whether public enterprises can be a “tool for governance”, the former prime minister’s firm suggestion (in summary) is that State intervention in managing and operating critical areas of national economic activity should not simply be a matter of political ideology, but of absolute necessity and under special circumstances, with qualified persons and extensive safeguards to guarantee accountability and prevent or discourage corruption.

What Mr Seaga outlines and what the PNP has been saying about creating relief employment through JEEP, indicate that it would be easier for Jamaica to slide back into ideological or politically motivated State interventions under a PNP government, than under an Andrew Holness-led JLP Government.

This, especially when we hear the opposition leader pouring scorn on Mr Holness’s debating response that the private sector (not government) was “responsible” for creating employment.

It is undoubtedly true that “market forces alone” cannot always be relied upon to generate sufficient timely economic activity to achieve appropriate or desirable employment and other economic and social objectives.

Also, it may well be true that if Jamaica’s private sector were sufficiently committed to the JLP’s stated position on the pivotal role of the private sector and market forces in generating productive economic activity and employment, it would not really matter which party wins the elections.

However, if Mr Seaga’s account of the PNP’s record is anything to go by — going all the way back to Messrs Norman and Michael Manley, and including recent pronouncements about the role of the State in creating employment — victory for the PNP on Thursday would at least threaten the current momentum toward less State intervention and more private sector initiatives in the current relatively stable economic environment.

On the other hand, a JLP victory, especially if decisive, would allow the momentum to continue without significant danger, at least for a sufficiently reasonable length of time to facilitate success.

At the same time, based on the JLP’s stated plan and practice of encouraging appropriate private/public sector co-operation, a JLP-led State would also be more than comfortable working with the private sector to nudge or stimulate private sector action in the right environment or to manage/operate economic enterprise on behalf of the people (unilaterally if necessary), but with appropriate safeguards and qualified personnel, as suggested by Mr Seaga, and as successfully practised in the past by a Seaga-led JLP administration.

In considering the PNP’s track record as outlined by Mr Seaga, along with current PNP statements, it seems clear to me that there is a big difference between the JLP and the PNP concerning the role of government in generating economic growth and employment.

One of these parties is definitely not like the other.

Carlton A Gordon

carltongor@gmail.com