“He who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart. He who is still a socialist at 40 has no brain.” Like many witty oversimplifications Georges Clemenceau’s quip rings true. “All for one, one for all” and “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” are immensely attractive concepts to the tender hearted young. But bitter experience teaches alas that man in general is a weak and selfish creature who rarely puts others before himself and works hardest for his own interests.

History has confirmed Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” hypothesis.

“By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affect to trade for the public good.”

It may be unattractive in theory, but free market capitalism is clearly the best way of increasing a nation’s wealth. Yet the essence of the free market is competition, which oligopolists and monopolists seek to eliminate. Adam Smith was not a businessman but a philosophy professor and his “Wealth of Nations” was primarily an attack on monopolies.

The most spectacular emanation of the invisible hand has been the personal computer. Thirty years ago the PC did not exist. But in a relentlessly competitive environment devoid of central planning it has grown from blinking dots on a screen to a world transforming machine that writes, calculates, talks, plays music, takes photos, shows films, transfers information instantly, and taps into the biggest library ever. The PC industry may be the closest approximation to a “perfectly efficient market” the world has known. And in terms of product improvement and wealth production it is also the most successful.

Active competition is as essential in politics as in business. Just as market capitalism is the most successful economic system ever devised, so too is multi-party democracy the best form of government man has conceived. Westminster, presidential, republican, constitutional – these are only words. What makes democracy work is the incumbents’ knowledge that if they do not improve the public welfare they will be voted out. Which is why the quality of life is highest in democratic nations.

One remarkable facet of early Jamaican democracy was how well Bustamante and Norman Manley complimented each other. If either had existed unchallenged the country’s formative years might have been very different.

Those who rouse the masses are rarely fiscal conservatives. But to Busta “Conducting Government’s business, Sir, is the same thing as conducting one’s own property – never to credit more than you can afford to pay. Otherwise all the creditors turn against you”.

But organization was not Busta’s forte. Much of the basic administrational structure of the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union, and by default the later Jamaica Labour Party, was put in place by Norman Manley and associates when Busta was in jail during the war. Busta on his own might have created a ramshackle structure liable to collapse into confusion.

Norman Manley was an organized intellectual of irreproachable rectitude. Yet he lacked Busta’s business common sense. Had the PNP held undisputed power it might well have put into action Norman’s declaration that “all the means of production should in one form or another come to be publicly owned and publicly controlled”. And no government controlled economy has ever prospered.

Yet by alternating two worthwhile but partially faulty alternatives, Jamaica from 1944 to 1972 advanced farther than any other developing ‘nation’.

In 1957 the economist Austin Peck described the PNP’s 10 year National Plan thus

“… policies dealing with unemployment and industrialization seem confused and contradictory, because the Government wants to provide the maximum number of jobs possible in the short run. The approach seems unlikely to result in Jamaica’s long run development, or in raising its living standards. Indeed, its basic philosophy seems to be ‘Keep Jamaica poor, but spread the poverty around’.’’

Norman Manley’s administration never spent more than it earned and its nationalization bark was worse than its bite. Unfortunately his son’s 1970s government was socialist in word and deed. It implemented more development and distribution projects than the economy could sustain and then borrowed money to make up the shortfall. Impressed by communist Cuba’s educational and medical programs, Michael Manley forgot that only massive soviet Russian subsidies enabled Castro’s regime to afford them. The nationalized Cuban economy was and is a miserable failure. And socialism in Jamaica uncannily fulfilled Austin Peck’s fears.

An old adage says socialist parties are necessary to formulate policies, but conservative parties are elected to implement them. Edward Seaga’s 1980s regime showed there is some truth to this. Forced to devise, announce and administer bitter economic medicine, the JLP never gained a true mandate and was unable or unwilling to make all the fundamental alterations necessary for consistent growth. The economy did stop declining and even grew a bit. But the people ultimately decided that this was not enough to justify the sacrifices forced upon them.

The current PNP government speaks the language of liberalization and has made many structural changes. But it has not properly followed the example of countries which have successfully transformed their economies. It keeps taking reluctant half-measures, for instance keeping monetary policy tight yet running a large fiscal deficit.

Had an organized pro-business JLP won re-election in 1997 and carried to completion the adjustment process started by the PNP, Jamaica would not be in its current economic mire. Unfortunately the JLP now specializes in confusion. There are probably not 20 constituencies where the Labour party is properly organized. Since the NDM will be glad to win even one seat, a PNP victory in the next election is practically assured. This after a 5 year recession. No wonder 65% of the populace wants to emigrate.

The current PNP administration is like a corrupt and inefficient monopoly producing shoddy and over-priced goods that nobody wants. But the only other factory in town has shut down production. What are the people to do? changkob@hotmail.com