Jaevion Nelson | Burden of poverty is breaking the backs of people

Hands up if you are fed up with politicians creating alarm, ever so often, about the cost of food and other items poor people use and the quantities in which they are sold. I don’t know about you, but I am laden with disappointment and disillusionment at the insatiable need by politicians to make some noise, trade cheeky remarks, and resolve to the comfort of doing nothing to address the problems.

Most recently, a photo circulated with slices of bread and other items being sold in small quantities in a shop as an indication of how awful the situation is for the poor. Earlier this year, during the Budget debates, we argued about the price of chicken back, for days, and the sparse number of things $10,000 can purchase to ‘fill’ a basket. Prodded by the theatrics, we, basically, have the same discussion over and over, especially during the Budget debates and when it is painfully obvious that poor people are fed up.

Newsflash: things bin bad bad and a nuh todeh. I honestly thought everybody knows it (the economy) set a way from fish back made an appearance in Parliament in March 2015. As far as I know, slice a bread, squeeze a dis, rice or fry dumpling n gravy, stick a buttah and so a sell long long time. Sadly, the strategy seems to be the same, regardless of who is in power. The Opposition talks about the price of food. The Government quips with a response. When a nuh fish back a chicken back. So can we stop creating alarm about what obtains (as if it is anything new) and discuss how to make the situation better?

Glenroy Murray, a human rights advocate, asked two important questions recently on social media: How have we systematically addressed social protection? How has the National Policy on Poverty been implemented beyond PATH and other piecemeal approaches to social protection?’ I will go further to ask: When was the last time the Minimum Wage Commission met? When was the last increase? What has been the rate of inflation since then? What have we done throughout the pandemic to support people in need? What changes to laws and policies have we argued about to (better) protect the poor and vulnerable people?

PROPER PROTECTION PROGRAMME

Rather than creating an alarm, our leaders ought to recognise that we desperately need a proper social-protection programme. Regrettably, we keep skirting around the issue as if it isn’t critical. Social protection is a human right. Jamaica’s Social Protection Strategy defines social protection as a set of provisions that employ public and private initiatives guided by state policies to prevent, address, and reduce the risk of poverty and vulnerability brought about by lack of losses or interruptions to income. Jamaica’s social-protection scheme has four components: several social-assistance programmes across ministries, departments, and agencies; social insurance; labour-market programmes; and social-care initiatives. The Government, being party to conventions, declarations, and agreements, including the Sustainable Development Goals, has an obligation to adopt policies, especially fiscal-wage and social-protection policies and progressively achieve greater equality in our society.

An established framework puts governments in a better position to care for the poor and vulnerable in situations like these. We have far too many initiatives here and there and unsurprisingly, the political mobilisation networks appear more equipped to distribute some support. How can you have an efficient and effective system under this kind of arrangement? How do you ensure that those who need it most are enrolled and adequately supported? How do you guard against a few capitalising and cashing in on a disjointed system?

There is an absence of consistent discussions around the need for better and more well-managed social-protection scheme. Sadly, many of our politicians seem to have largely ignored this even as they push for timely allocation of resources to help their constituents who are desperately in need. I don’t expect us to fix the social-protection issue in thirteen months, but I thought that more politicians would have recognised, based on the experiences of their constituents, how important it is for this to be used as a catalyst for much-needed improvement. How many of them have really spoken about this and championed this important cause? What have they done with their political capital and parliamentary privileges to both amplify the challenges faced by their constituents and push for changes?

BARELY SEEN IMPROVEMENT

Every year, we spend billions of dollars providing support to thousands of people — some who barely see much improvement in their lives over time. In the financial year 2019-2020, for example, at the time of the budget debate, the Government estimated that it would spend 5.04 per cent of GDP on social protection. It allocated $20 billion for its major social protection initiatives. This was an increase of $4 billion from the previous financial year. This accounted for about 20.55 per cent of the central government’s non-debt expenditure.

We must spend more efficiently on social protection. We can start by addressing the issues of efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. Let’s create an alarm about this. We will have to overhaul the social-protection framework so there is greater coordination so those who are in need are better supported. If we have a better programme, it will benefit those who need it most. We’ll have more to give them because we would have reduced the duplication. The time has come for political leaders to end the lip service for the poor and vulnerable and find better and more sustainable ways to help them. Fight if you must.

Jaevion Nelson is a human rights, economic and social justice and inclusive development advocate. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and jaevion@gmail.com or follow him on twitter @jaevionn.