It now seems confirmed that PNP is determined to successfully complete a kamikaze mission.
Two Saturdays ago Gleaner’s lengthy front page headline read “PNP bets on democratic socialism – Golding embraces Manley’s 1970s philosophy, vows to build on former PM’s legacy.”
If the headline is accurate, Mark Golding wouldn’t necessarily be thinking foolishly but definitely speaking carelessly. There’s nothing wrong with Democratic Socialism. It’s PNP’s foundation. Joshua didn’t invent it. Shortly after another PNP suicide attempt, in a column ( We Don’t Need Another Capitalist Party; September 15, 2019) I analysed the merits of Democratic Socialism and opined:
“…if Michael Manley’s rhetoric hadn’t gone off the rails; if his resistance to foreign intervention had been as resolute as his friend Fidel’s; if he’d retained control over PNP’s extreme left wing by not undermining his election promise ‘We Are Not For Sale’ with an almost immediate post-victory embrace of IMF; if Jamaica had pursued his self-reliance philosophy relentlessly come what may, the nation wouldn’t now be in such a philosophical knot tied by economic, educational and anti-social tumult.”
The problem with Democratic Socialism isn’t its policies but that 1970s’ events caused it to replace Rolling Calf as Jamaica’s Number One Bogeyman. This was so self-evident that, by 1989, Manley himself drifted away from Democratic Socialism; discarded his Kareeba; wore suit and tie; and espoused market-oriented policies. He accepted the dramatic geo-political changes worldwide. Socialist rhetoric, however altruistic, only created isolation.
Jamaica’s economic realities are no better today than 1989. They’re worse. Much worse! The last thing Jamaica needs now is socialist rhetoric.
So, if Mark said what Gleaner headline implied he said, after the next election PNP would need a second to perform seppuku. So he threw a hissy fit; accused “a newspaper” of fabricating a headline; and posted a video of his speech during which he said:
“We have to transform the economy from what it is, which is an economy that isn’t delivering for the people, to an economy that creates opportunities for people to rise up and achieve their hopes and dreams.”
How, Markie, how?
“The centre of that economy must be the people. That’s why education and training is vital.”
Ya don’t say? What will PNP do to realise this vague, facile objective?
“Our policy is to integrate [private and State sectors] when it comes to training so that we incentivize businesses to take on young people and train them or upskill their existing workers.”
Whoa! Whadaya mean by “incentivize businesses”? Will you subsidize private enterprise’s on-the-job training? Will you give tax incentives for private businesses to do what’s already in their self interest? Isn’t education currently an integrated private/public sector effort? What the dickens are you getting at Mark?
“So rather than try to make HEART deliver training courses often which are out of date not training people for the jobs that are being created today we must empower businesses to train people…”
EMPOWER BUSINESSES? WHY? First you want to “incentivize businesses”. Now you want to “empower businesses”. You have benefits for businesses on your mind.
“….because the businesses will be training them for the things that need to be done in the business and that will mean our people will be more employable and able to make some money for themselves.”
What the granny gungus natty? I thought this was all about “people” not “businesses”. Which private business needs government empowerment to train staff to do the business’s work? How does this help staff “make some money for themselves?” This isn’t democratic socialism. This sounds like MAGA trickle-down market capitalism to me.
This isn’t people-centred. This is business-centred. People-centred policies ensure Government delivers training BEFORE Big Business employs trainees. That’s why Joshua introduced the socialist policy of free education.
But, Mark, in my opinion, you DID embrace Democratic Socialism in that speech. Otherwise why include:
“Our cause is a just cause. Our movement is the movement that was created to lead Jamaica out of bondage; out of colonialism; out of sufferation. And when you look around the world now and you see what’s happening in the United States who could imagine that Democratic socialism is on the rise in the United States. Who can imagine that? Things and times changing…”
Immediately after touting PNP original philosophy, Mark celebrates Democratic Socialism’s “rise” in the United States. That didn’t sound like just an embrace. It sounded like an enthusiastic hug and kiss delivered with his trademark (no pun intended) smirk.
If it quacks like a duck…
That possible ad-lib followed by his mad rush to disclaim proves how electorally suicidal Jamaicans consider that phrase. Or how chronically Markie G still suffers from political immaturity! But I see that a weak-kneed, molly-coddling Gleaner published a “clarification” on Wednesday. Kmt!
Michael Manley distanced himself from Democratic Socialism in 1989. As PM, PJ Patterson shelved Democratic Socialism; dismantled exchange controls; liberalized the financial sector; and actively sought local and international business communities’ trust. Portia sounded like a democratic socialist but her government discarded it; pursued market-driven policies; and her Finance Minister approached social spending like a miser with OCD.
So why bring up Democratic Socialism now except as a best effort to lose yet another general election or a desperate diversion defending against potential leadership challenges?
Remember Peter Bunting telling Cliff Hughes during his 2019 leadership challenge that he didn’t subscribe to 1970s Democratic Socialism followed by a stinging rebuke from Paul Burke? Now Markie G, under pressure from The Dread, is embracing democratic socialism’s alleged “rise” in USA?
What rise? Democratic Socialists won a few Democratic Party primaries. Famously, Democratic Socialist Angie Nixon scored a major upset over traditionalist Alexander Vindman in Florida’s Senate primary. In November she’ll run against Republican incumbent J. Ashley Moodie. We shall see.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives a dual definition of “Social Democracy” the pertinent of which is:
“2. A democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices”
This must be what Mark embraced in his speech. One of democratic socialists’ fundamental concerns is the vexed issue of land for the landless. This is entrenched in PNP’s Constitution as a national objective to “promote predominantly the interest of the people as a whole by the organisation of Jamaica into a country of small settlers, farmers and workers….”
Is “small settlers” a euphemism for squatters, Mark? Is this why you hurried to support Coopers Pen squatters after their lawful eviction? What do you plan to do about land ownership in Jamaica? Abolish it? What do you plan to do about unjust laws that give squatters ownership of lands based on twelve years illegal occupation while owners pay property taxes for decades (until they can’t) and dream?
Did you know a recent decision by Jamaica’s Court of Appeal, confirmed by Privy Council results in the following absurd scenario being possible?
Tom owns property in Westmoreland but lives in Clarendon. He’s unable to visit Westmoreland due to a variety of issues. Meanwhile squatters reside on the property for twelve years. They take no action against Tom to alert him of their occupation or to be registered as owners by “Adverse Possession”. Eventually Tom sells to Dick who buys the land without a clue about the squatters. Titles Office registers a transfer to Dick.
Suddenly Harry Squatter sues Dick for ownership of the land. As a result of the excellently reasoned and legally sound Court of Appeal judgment in Recreational Holdings (look it up) Dick loses the land and has no recourse unless he can find Tom alive with assets. Regardless, he has lost the property for which he paid despite holding a lawfully issued Certificate of Title.
What are you going to do about this bizarre state of property rights Mark? Will you commit to introducing legislative changes ensuring a registered purchaser for value without notice cannot lose ownership to unknown squatters? Or will you make it easier for illegal squatters to legally capture privately owned land? You’ve already tried that regarding Government land.
Mark, declare yourself! Are you a Capitalist? Are you a Socialist? Are you a Democratic Socialist? Who are you really? Don’t tell me nonsense about “fabricated” headlines. Tell me about YOU.
Peace and Love.
Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com
