This
stratagem of patronage has consisted of the selective grant
of concessions on an ad hoc basis, to entice different
entrepreneurs and economic groupings to support
Government’s activities. If one understands this, then one
need not be surprised that the response of the Government to
the Chamber’s statement has been a pained and irritated
complaint that the Chamber and its members have not been
thankful for the long list of concessions (gifts from its
armoury of patronage) which they have received.
This
stratagem of “patronage concessions” was obvious to some
of us involved in the 1997 General Elections campaign. A
series of promises of a specific nature were made to
different individuals and
groupings in the society. We knew, from practical and
observational experience, then that this network of promises
of concessions of one kind or another would subsequently tie
the Government’s hands, and compromise and then paralyse,
its capacity to make effective economic policy. That
is where we are today.
This
no more evident than in Government’s policy towards the
banana industry. Kenny Anthony’s New Labour Party chose
not to follow-up
the carefully designed policy of my administration in late
1996 in, first, rationalising the institutional arrangements
of the industry through the Banana Amendment Bill of
September 1996, as a prelude to what I called in the House
of Assembly at that time “full privatisation”.
That
Act was passed with the assistance of then Hon Julian Hunte
and other Labour members of Parliament in the House, after
being dealt with in a specially designed Select Committee of
the House, which, as members of the Chamber will recall, was
open to their participation.
The Act was described by Mr. Patrick Joseph, on the
evening of its passing as “a moral victory for the
farmers”.
That
Act, quickly forgotten in the flush of Labour victory and
subsequent “real privatisation”,was designed first, to
reduce and eliminate the continual demonstrations of
dissension in the farming areas - which it did; and
secondly, to signal to the European Union that the ground
was ready for an extensive programme of economic and
technical assistance (following the discussions on the
Cargill Report).
That
programme of assistance was formalised in the agreement with
the EU which I signed in December of 1996. It is that
agreement which, after three years of Labour Government, has
barely been implemented - a situation which has left the
productivity of our industry in continual decline.
This
policy of my Government, relieving the then SLBGA of some of
its debt, providing extensive resources for irrigation, and
technical assistance for modernisation of farm practices,
was in fact replaced by a new one. This was the “stratagem
of patronage”
approach including the so-called “wiping out” of the
whole debt by the SLBGA, and the offloading of the resources
of the industry to the Banana Salvation Committee, with
complete disregard for other players in the industry The
result is current history, and the current paralysis of a
Government flailing its arms in the face of negative
internal and external impacts on the industry.
As
I have said elswhere, I will not blame Mr Patrick Joseph of
the then Salvation Committee for trying to get the best at
least cost to himself and his followers, in that situation
of give-away politics (the politics of “pay back time”)
Pay back time politics was designed to reward those who had
been tied into the pre-election system of political support.
That political economy was also evident in the Police Force
and in the Prisons with results that are now clear to all.
But
as I have said recently in relation to the Eagle Air affair
( and as the Chamber will surely appreciate) while it is the
business of the entrepreneur to seek to maximise his profits
and to maximise the conditions for making profit, it is the
particular business of Government to ensure that their are
conditions of fairness and equity between competing
entrepreneurs, and in the interchange between the
entrepreneur and his clients or customers. That is why, for
example, though
there is free competition between different supermarkets,
Government, in the interest of equity and fairness regulates
the prices of certain basic commodities).
I
have spent so much time on the banana industry, not simply
because it is one of the basic legs of our economy - an
economy whose
decline simply reflects the decline of the industry. But
also because the stratagem of patronage and selective
concessions (gifts by the grace of Government as a reward
for present and future allegiance, displays of appreciation,
and accomodating behaviour) of the Kenny Anthony Government
towards the banana industry, is symptomatic of his
Government’s general approach to other sectors of economic
activity. It is in regard now to the failure of this
approach, that the Government’s Press Secretary displays
the barely concealed vexation of his, and his
Government’s, reply to the Chamber.
This
policy (which I prefer to call a stratagem) reflects
itself in:
(1)
A haphazard manner of decision-making without the required
substantiation or explanation of particular policies. This
is demonstrated in the Government’s approach, for example,
to decisions about Government construction of buildings -
NIPDEC, the new Government buildings slated for the
Cul de Sac Highway, the continually changing cost of the
proposed new Prison, and the unexplained use of NIS funds
for non-revenue generating construction. It should by now to
all that the critieria for determining these activities are
politcal rather than economic.
(2)
Unstable taxation policies, the result, first,
of Government’s desperation for revenue, and
secondly, of a laxly considered approach to external advice
- an approach borne of inexperience and a refusal to utilise
the services of experienced public servants, because they
are not considered to be “one of us”. This
discrimination within the Public Service is one of the worst
disservices that the Government has done to the prospects
for institutional stability in our country - not to talk of
the humiliation and psychological damage wreaked on
particular individuals who have devoted themselves to their
country’s service.
(3)
Erratic management of statutory and public corporations -
the impending disaster in the finances of SLASPA is a case
in point. The blatant use of the National Conservation
Authortity as an instrument of political patronage and
potential vote-getting is another. The disorder in policy
making in the tourism sector -with its selective and
prejudiced allocation of incentives - is yet another.
(4)
Incomplete and inconsistent reporting to Parliament of the
Government’s financial affairs and intentions. The
clearest example is the Helen Air Guarantee Affair,
shielding vital information from the public. Yet another the
Prime Minister’s assertion that he and his colleagues have
simply decided not to “take” the backpay, but to
“give” it to the Belle Fashion farmers - as if the money
derived from taxpayers and entrepreneurs is simply there to
be given and taken on the basis of personal or ideological
predilections.
(5)
Finally, there is the general indecisiveness in economic
planning - best demonstrated in the case of the banana
industry - but generally visible in the Government’s trial
and error approach in the important sector of education. The mixed signals which Government has given in the air
transportation industry, as the competing companies grapple
for market share and domination in a limited arena is
another example.
In
a series of addresses,
in October 1996 and after
to the St.Lucia Chamber of Commerce, the Association
of Indigenous Bankers, to the SLHTA and to the Insurance
Institute, I began to lay out a view of the necessity for St
Lucia’s “balanced
economic development”
in response to the major changes occuring in the
world, and to the obvious “maturing” of the banana
industry as the major growth pole of the economy.
These and other pronouncements were lost in the headlong
rush to the siren songs of “time for a change”
We
have had the change. It is immeasurably worse than anyone
could have imagined in 1996/97.
And
the situation of our economic system and social system
(ravaged by Government’s erratic approach to crime), is
also immeasurably worse.