 |
| |
Education the top priority
Published in the Jamaica Gleaner: Sunday | August 12, 2007
In the next two weeks, we will be looking closely at what the two major political parties are saying, specifically at their manifestos. We want to probe these documents, weigh them side by side, cost them, take a close look at what has been included and what has been omitted, then discuss the implications these might have for Jamaica as we peek at the policies that will likely shape our future.
Our research method involves a combination of primary and secondary resources which allow us to come up with a rough estimate of the costs of some of the policies/promises made in the manifesto documents. As a guide to some of these costs, we are using past budget documents, accounting resources from the main ministries affected by the programmes and policies being proposed, interviews from persons working in the fields of interest, other countries' resources and the implementation of our own costing/statistical methodologies.
Today, we start with a very general content analysis of the two manifestos - what exactly has been put on to the table, how firmly, and what has been left off. While politicians always face the temptation to say everything is a priority, an interesting exercise is to weigh these priorities by looking at how much time is actually spent on issues in their documents and speeches.
The economy and education tie for the lion's share of space in the Jamaica Labour Party's (JLP) manifesto. The topic of governance and corruption follow, then health and foreign policy round out their top five most-discussed issues.
In the People's National Party's (PNP) manifesto, education is the runaway hot topic, followed by health. The economy and housing tie for third place, while governance and corruption and foreign policy tie for fourth. Perhaps the most surprising issue absent from both 'top fives' is that of crime.
Some might have expected the JLP-commissioned Macmillan Crime Report to form the basis of a thorough treatise on crime in the Opposition's manifesto. Human rights advocates and environmentalists might also not be happy with the relatively small space they get in either. And the issue of family life, though touted as an important matter on almost all political podiums, makes only a small blip on the PNP's manifesto and no appearance at all in the JLP's.
Similar in some ways
The manifestos are similar in some ways. On the matter of education, both parties propose the building of new schools, an increase in the value of the student loans, expansion of the e-learning programme, and the recruitment of remedial specialist teachers.
For the economy, both agree on the need for tax reforms, tourism development and facilitation of investment, and more improvements to roads, seaports and airlifts. As for crime, both parties intend to strengthen the police force to 12,000, build community support for lawenforcement, improve forensic capability, upgrade the police academy and tackle corruption in the force.
Unfortunately, in the end, both make promises that have fiscal implications for which the parties do not account, a concern since they both maintain a commitment to fiscal discipline. The JLP's wish-list for the economy seems particularly costly.
Of course, it might plead the ignorance of an Opposition party. The PNP, by contrast, cannot fall back on saying it can't estimate what a pledge would cost. For example, while both parties want to expand the police force substantially - a laudable idea - neither has said where it would find the money.
Vague pledges
Each document also has its fair share of platitudes and vague pledges. Words like "promote" and "encourage" recur in both texts. While they might make for good reading, such commitments can mean anything from making a speech to creating a major programme.
Without such detail, it is very difficult to assess what the parties are planning to do. Thus, until the parties provide more explicit outlines of what they intend to do, such commitments should probably be treated as strategic goals rather than actual policies.
However, the most interesting element in the discussion probably lies in where the parties differ. The PNP does not agree with the Opposition on the abolition of tuition fees at government-operated secondary schools, or on the provision of free, public health care.
Public sector reform
The PNP has suggested addressing social conditions in violence-prone areas, while the JLP has propositioned a complete transformation of political garrisons. The PNP has strongly emphasised its intent on public sector reform to boost macroeconomic standards, while the JLP is seeking to create a business-friendly environment to attract job-creating investments.
But, where the major difference exists is in the question of whether the country is on track, and what it needs to do if it is not.
Fundamentally, the PNP's message is that the country is moving in the right direction, and that it is essential to maintain continuity in government if the country is going to continue reaping the harvest of what has been sown over the last 18 years in the way of economic and social management. The PNP seems then to be looking for voters who share this view, and feel basically optimistic about Jamaica.
The JLP, by contrast, tries to appeal to those who might believe the country is doing badly, and needs a major change. But unlike the 1980 election, when the JLP called for a different economic orientation, today it is calling for a different political one.
The principal difference between the two parties exists in the area to which the JLP has apparently given the most of its time in preparing its manifesto - governance. The JLP is calling for a major overhaul of the political system which could, if fully implemented, profoundl the relationship between citizen and state. In taking the leadership of the JLP, Bruce Golding apparently carried over much of the NDM's principles. Voters who share those principles may well be attracted to this manifesto.
In the days ahead, we will be taking a closer look at the six issue, areas which voters (via polls) and the parties are saying they prioritise the most - crime, the economy and employment, governance, education, health, and the justice system.
We will be assessing the likely impact of the policy proposals put forth by each party in those areas. We will also try to ascertain the likely cost.
However, while we are engaged in an exercise that estimates the cost of the party's respective platforms, by necessity, that exercise is speculative and requires a good deal of estimation and extrapolation. We, therefore, strongly urge the parties to provide more details of their policies and their attendant costs, so that the election debate can move to a higher plane in which all citizens will be fully informed ahead of the all-important choices they will be making.
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
