http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20061210/focus/focus2.html
Published: Sunday | December 10, 2006

In A Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell posits two fundamental political outlooks, the constrained and unconstrained visions. The first is best expressed in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, which accepts man's moral limitations and egocentricity as inherent facts of life. Rather than wastefully attempting to change human nature, it tries to make the best of the possibilities existing within that context.

In contrast William Godwin's Enquiry Concerning Political Justice sees humans as, if not perfectible, at least improvable. Man is considered capable of directly feeling other people's needs as more important than his own, and therefore of consistently acting impartially, even when his own interests are involved.

The constrained vision is associated with the conservative right, the unconstrained with the liberal left. Some take such labels seriously and divide the world into enlightened 'us' and ignorant 'them'. Yet, permanent truth does not exist in politics. Times change, circumstances vary, and reality is far too complex to be comprehended by any single mindset.

Democracy bears this out, as electorates regularly swap left and right. The chart on Page G2 shows the terms in office since 1945 of Britain's Labour and Conser-vatives, America's Democrats and Republicans, Canada's Liberals and Conservatives and Australia's Labour and Liberals. A grand total shows an almost 50/50 split - 118 years for the bleeding hearts and 126 for the wing nuts.

Canada has been primarily leftist and Australia primarily rightist, yet both are eminently successful nations - as are Westminster Britain and Presidential America. It's not the details but the flushing out that matters. Which is why electorates in mature democracies mostly ignore 'separation of powers' constitutional reform rhetoric. Decent government means throwing the bums out periodically.

Nominal switching

Jamaica follows the general trend, with 32 years of centre left PNP and 29 years of centre right JLP rule. Yet, despite this nominal switching, some think our intellectual climate lopsided and say we pay too little attention to Adam Smith. Wilmot Perkins put it this way to me a few years back.

"The intellectuals have failed this society. A government cannot be successful if unrealistic demands are made upon it. If people expect you to deliver the moon, you must disappoint. Now politicians can only sell policies the electorate market will buy. Others have the function of shaping demands and educating the public about what is possible.

"Masons and doctors don't have time to study economic and political theory. In modern society there is a division of labour, and the job of certain persons is to master such issues and help others to understand them. In our society those entrusted with that responsibility are not doing their job.

"The government of this country has been predicated upon unrealism.

"Karl Marx said that how men organise to produce the means of their subsistence constitutes the fundamental relations in society. We seem to think that it is how men organise to distribute that matters, and the university has encouraged this view.

"This is the major failure in our society. Those who are supposed to think have and do not think properly. If the thinking had been right and the populace well informed, their demands would have been more reasonable. And politicians would not have tried to do what they did."

Since I know few professors and don't read academic journals, my impression of UWI comes from what its denizens say on radio and write in the local press. And based on that, Mr. Perkins' analysis is more right than wrong. With a few independent minded exceptions like Claude Robinson and Damien King, UWI-based public commentators display a herd like anti-free enterprise mentality. They mostly agree with their heroes Norman and Michael Manley that "all the means of production should in one form or other come to be publicly owned and publicly controlled."

Their political biases are palpable. No good is ever spoken of Alexander Bustamante, Hugh Shearer or Edward Seaga. Only the positives of PNP regimes and the negatives of JLP administrations are highlighted. Labourite transgressions are categorically condemned, but criticisms of Comrades always come with the caveat that the JLP are just as bad or worse.

Litmus test

Trafigura was a perfect litmus test. If it had been a JLP government that took millions in shady circumstances from a foreign multinational that has been linked to 10 deaths and accused of making thousands ill in a poor African country, does anyone doubt that the UWI cabal would have thundered in unison not about 'banking secrecy' and 'campaign finance' but about 'immoral blood-money bribes'?

But academics who know nothing of bottom lines often have socialist leanings. UWI is hardly the first leftist university. Most USA college professors vote Democrat, and most British dons support Labour. But in these countries privately-funded think tanks act as intellectual counterweights to academia. Plus, the economy and population is large enough to support conservative university bodies like the Chicago School of Economics. Jamaica's intelligentsia imbalance is a problem shared by most small poor countries unable to afford more than one intellectual centre.

Counterbalance

Can the much vaunted 'Taking Responsibility' study of the Jamaican economy provide the needed counterbalance? The PR release says "Taking Responsibility isn't just the name of this project. It is a call to arms; a call to reclaim the hope that existed on August 6, 1962." While intended to produce several books and a large conference, the ultimate goal is to create a permanent unbiased think tank.

Funded by private sector and multilateral institutions, 'Taking Responsibility' was spearheaded by Jamaicans who, tired of veranda talk, decided to rigorously answer a simple question. Given its history and resources, how well or badly has Jamaica done since 1962?

The goal is to get Jamaican intellectuals from across the planet - and non-Jamaican intellectuals interested in Jamaica - to consider the challenges facing the country and to offer solutions. It includes thinkers not only from educational institutions but from non-governmental organisations and the private sector, as well as 'real world' technicians. This broad base should neutralise institutional biases and let all views contend fairly.

Jamaicans abroad already help the country financially with remittances, and 'Taking Responsibility' will allow them to contribute intellectually. Many, if not most, persons involved are young enough to be sufficiently removed by time from the ideological struggles of the 1970s and so offer undistorted viewpoints. The chairman of the advisory board is John Rapley, whose Canadian background will also bring some outsider objectivity.

I've only seen the study outline draft and, to be honest, it smacks of university committee woolly mindedness. Tiresome Babylon versus Jerusalem verbiage does not square with the promised hard-headed, data-driven approach. But there are at least two strong positives. It seems free from ideological and personal biases - there's no Is Manley Fault or CIAga rubbish. Nor does it try to blame Jamaica's lack of economic success on external forces. Given what we are used to, this is a promising start.

With teaser ads, a Gleaner brochure and a grand launch at Emancipation Park, 'Taking Responsibility' is the most publicised academic project in memory. In a sense it represents our intelligentsia's claim to relevance in modern Jamaica. Let's hope it lives up to the hype.