Ultimately the usefulness or success of any political system/administration is determined by how quickly, efficiently, and beneficially it translates words into tangible actions that benefit the pockets and dinner tables, especially of the majority.

Millions, globally, are very dissatisfied or, as we say in local parlance, “fed up”, about the ability, speed, and efficiency — more so the lack thereof — with which democracy has been delivering especially social and economic goods, particularly in recent years.

Democracy is on trial. Western-styled liberal democracies have been at this crossroads before. The turbulent years just prior to and during the Great Depression in the 1930s is an example. The devastating impact of the Wall Street crash of 1929, and its domino-effect, shook and shifted social and economic tectonic plates worldwide. There was talk of revolution even in America. Thanks to the New Deal, a series of public work projects, and financial reforms/regulations enacted by President Franklin D Roosevelt in America between 1933 and 1938, democracy and capitalism were given a reprieve. Today, democracy is before the courts, once again.

IMPORTANT LESSONS

As was the case in the 1930s, there is massive discontent with the molasses-like pace at which many democratic governments are delivering and or seeming to deliver. Talk of revolution is again hot on the lips of many people globally — unsurprisingly an inordinate number of fringe leaders have cropped up in many parts of the world.

Whenever democracy and capitalism are on trial, for especially laggardness and/or outright failure to deliver, merchants of especially extremisms invariably jump out of the woodwork.

I have previously discussed, for example, the clear and present dangers of the extremes of the left and right in this space. We must heed the conspicuous dark clouds.

Globally, folks are screaming deliver or perish! A left-behind majority wants governments to deliver a love that can be felt. Meaning, folks are demanding governments which can and do respond in a timely manner with regard the delivery of economic and social goods that translate into personal material betterment. Especially in countries that have secured good microeconomic gains, folks are shouting: “We want our share of the pie and we want it, now.” These screams must be heeded.

Consider this: Recently Joko Widodo’s two terms as president of the Republic of Indonesia ended. Indonesia’s economy is one of the fastest-growing in the world. Over the last 10 years Indonesia has regularly achieved a growth rate of about five per cent, except during the period of the novel coronavirus pandemic. Of the top 10 economies in the world by measure of gross domestic product (GDP), 2024 World Bank data showed that Indonesia was at 7th. Data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank forecast that, by 2050, Indonesia’s economy will be 4th globally, as regard GDP. Those data also show that only China, India, and the US will be ahead of Indonesia by 2050, as regard the measure of GDP.

Indonesia is a country of some 281 million people across 17,000 islands. She has considerable natural resources. She is responsible for just about a half of the global exports of nickel, which is used in electronic devices like cellular phones. She has bauxite, oil, natural gas, coal, copper, gold, tin, etc.

Notwithstanding the very strong Indonesian economy, the national campaign to replace Joko Widodo was not a walk in the park for those who vied to replace him. The primary focus of Indonesia’s national campaign was how to grow the economy faster and simultaneously enable the majority to feel and see the tangible benefits in their pockets and on dinner tables.

Razzle-dazzle, the reciting of useless epithets, ridiculous on-stage gimmicks, shouting of meaningless slogans, childish barbs and the like, did not feature prominently in the national campaign to choose a new president. The primary focus was who best could enable increased economic growth, which could/would, thereafter, translate into making the lives of the majority materially better.

Prabowo Subianto, during his campaign activities, committed to enabling 8 per cent growth within 5 years. He promised massive investments in health, housing, and education, starting with a ‘free lunch’ programme for the country’s students.

Mr Subianto beat two opponents to the presidency.

JAMAICA’S REALITIES

Long ago I said in this space that: “There are no strong countries with weak economies, and there are no weak countries with strong economies.” A country’s macroeconomic state has to be in good health before it can redistribute resources in a sustained manner.

“You cyaan mek blood from stone,” as rural folks say. Countries which have tried to defy this simply formula have ended up in the snare of crippling taxes and stifling borrowing. The People’s National Party (PNP) shoved us into the giant sinkhole of suffocating taxation and suicide-like borrowing in the 1970s and 90s. We are still recovering from those preventable catastrophes. I have said it here before, but it bears repeating: We must never pass that terrible way ever again.

It is in this historical context, plus the realities of Jamaica’s present macroeconomic gains, that I assessed the budget speeches of the Opposition spokesman on finance Julian Robinson, the Minister of Finance and the Public Service Fayval Williams, the Leader of the Opposition Mark Golding, and Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness.

The demand in dozens of democracies across the world today is: “Make the macroeconomic numbers matter to my life.” In many democracies globally, folks, like they did in the 1930s, just prior to World War II, and at other times in modern history, are screaming: “I see the macroeconomic numbers. They look great. But numbers on a page mean nothing if I cannot afford a healthy diet, cannot afford to pay for critical medical care, cannot afford to send my children to school, cannot afford a car or house, and realistically cannot plan for the future.” Responsive democracies listen. Democracies which do not listen and/or take too long to clear the wax build-up in the ears, inevitably go to the wall. “Ears that do not listen to advice, accompany the head when it is chopped off,” goes an African Proverb.

Like the Indonesians, Germans, and the citizens of other countries which held national elections recently, our focus must be fixed on the choosing of national representation which has a track record of helping to facilitate/produce meaningful economic growth. Present form is critical. Why? The past and the present are the best predictors of the future.

IN FORM, FAYVAL

The presentations of Finance and Public Service Minister Fayval Williams reinforced the importance of sound preparation, meeting opportunity, and delivering when it matters. Many expected here to fail, falter, and flop. She scored a century, instead.

Williams connected brilliantly and nationally at the top of her presentation. How? She spoke about her humble upbringings in the rural district of Tydixon in the parish of Trelawny. If you have an upbringing that connects/registers with the majority, tell it, and tell it well. Some political scholars call this the Horatio Alger approach.

Alger was an American author who wrote novels about impoverished young boys and their rise from humble backgrounds to middle-class security and comfort through hard/good works. Williams’ unvarnished recollections about carrying water on her head and the related struggles of growing up in deep, rural Jamaica hit familiar chords with most Jamaicans. That spectacular boundary aside, she did a marvellous job of outlining how the $1.26-trillion national budget for the 2025/26 fiscal year would be funded.

Williams explained that the budget will be funded with $949.5 billion of tax revenues; $139.8 billion of non-tax revenues; $812 million of bauxite levy; and $5.96 billion of grants. She informed that: “In terms of the debt payment, we have $162.7 billion of debt that comes due in fiscal year 2025/26. We forecast loan receipts of $158.4 billion and we expect to pay the difference from our own resources.” Williams told us how. And at every step of the way she demonstrated how the Government’s sums added up.

Why is this important? We have been tricked by our leaders so many times that well-thinking Jamaicans, are now insisting that we see the mathematics of how plans will be funded, when they will be funded, and how fundable plans will result in material benefits in our personal lives. Williams understood the assignment.

The income tax threshold will be increased by $300,000 to $2 million over the next three years. With the first $100,000 of the latest increase to take effect the day after tomorrow, April 1. PAYE workers will not pay income tax on the first $1.8 million that they earn. “Is a good look,” as we say in the streets.

“We are a responsible Government, and so we will increase the threshold in three tranches to $1.8 million, then $1.9 million, then $2 million over a three-year period starting April 1, 2025.” For me this was the high point of Williams’ presentation. Why? It reiterated the unwavering commitment to fiscal prudence of the Andrew Holness-led Administration this in a year when a general election will be held.

This commitment is a stark contrast to the “run wid it” years of especially the 1990s when P J Patterson was prime minister and Dr Omar Davies was minister of finance. Those were very awful times, good riddance! Jamaica must never backslide.

The other fundable ‘goodies’ announced by Williams are ‘Google-able’. Anyway, as I see it, Williams made a very impressive maiden century. She hit some delectable fours and several exquisite sixes. She, however, missed a glorious chance to to hit a massive six out of grounds. She did not specifically say how much each Jamaican now owes with respect to the debt, and thereafter forecast how much more that figure would jump to, given the trailer-load of promises announced in Parliament by the PNP.

ROBINSON’S DROP CATCH

The presentation of Julian Robinson, Opposition spokesman on finance, had some attractive ideas. I see where some have raised questions as to whether Robinson borrowed parts of his design from previous presentations and or declarations made by Andrew Holness when he was leader of the Opposition. Material results are what matter. Doing is the thing, the most important thing. I do not think quarrels about who said what first are helpful in enabling meaningful economic growth.

I wholeheartedly agree with Robinson that achieving much higher levels of efficiency, significantly raising educational outcomes at all levels, diversifying and making cheaper energy readily available to the majority, and greater facilitation of especially emerging industries — the four E’s — are vital to the facilitation of meaningful economic growth.

“Without serious investment in skills training, innovation, and modern infrastructure, we will never break free from this cycle of mediocrity,” Robinson was spot on here.

As regard confidence at the lectern, Robinson delivered his best showing to date. I did not fall asleep halfway through, like last year. As I see it, the several positives of Robinson’s presentations were, however, negated by his neglect to focus on ‘the how’. For many months I have been intermittently saying here that Jamaica today is not the Jamaica of the 1970s, 80s, or 90s. Well-thinking Jamaicans are not going to buy into promises — no matter how sweet-sounding — if there is no indication of prudent and adequate funding.

Robinson had a glorious opportunity to convince well-thinking Jamaicans that the PNP could/would transform the E’s, that he spoke about into reality. He squandered it by not addressing the how.

Robinson dropped a sitter. This is an easy catch dropped by the fielding side in cricket. It seemed to me that Robinson totally forgot that he was on the fielding side and that the opponent had significant runs on the board. Robinson still needs a lot of net practice.

How would your proposals be funded, Sir?

Garfield Higgins is an educator, and journalist. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or higgins160@yahoo.com.

Opposition spokesman on finance, planning and the public sector Julian Robinson gesticulates while making his contribution to the 2025/26 Budget Debate in Parliament. (Photo: Karl Mclarty)

Garfield Higgins