In whose interest?

It has been announced that the Government proposes to reduce the Common External Tariff (CET) on certain imports to 20 per cent. Industry watchers predict that if this happens, it will open a floodgate of cheap agricultural imports into Jamaica to compete against locally produced items.

The playing fields are not equal. Anyone doing business in Jamaica must deal with: higher electricity costs because of the Government's contract with the monopoly supplier; higher security costs because of local crime, often committed by politically linked garrison thugs; a high incidence of praedial larceny, exacerbated by poor enforcement by agents of the State; and duties and tariffs upon imported raw materials imposed by the Government, among other factors. Local agricultural produce cannot compete with foreign imports usually subsidised at home, even with a 20 per cent CET.

Jamaica used to have a thriving dairy industry; it could not compete with cheap imports, and now is virtually no more. Jamaica used to manufacture leather and other footwear; it could not compete with the cheap shoes the higglers were bringing in, and thus was forced to shut down.

Industry watchers predict that if the CET on certain imports is reduced to 20 per cent, this will force local producers (like fish and chicken farmers) to close down, throwing thousands of persons out of work, and disadvantaging thousands of farmers.

And the unequal terms of trade are largely of the Government's own making!

Perversely, this could be a politically popular move. The availability of cheaper food will make Jamaican consumers happy, especially those in urban areas, which should play out well at the polls. Rural producers and agro-industrial interests will not be happy, but their demise has to be traded off against the possibility of a JLP second term. Sometimes in political war, there is collateral damage. Clearly their campaign contributions were wasted, or were not large enough.

The Government can always claim it is acting in the best interests of Jamaican consumers, but it is a blatant effort to curry-favour with voters in the run-up to the next general election. Does it make sense to win the next election, at the expense of business closures and throwing Jamaicans out of work?

Redjet squabble

Compare this with the REDjet impasse. This Barbados-based low-budget airline wants to operate between Jamaica and other Caribbean destinations, including Barbados, Trinidad and Guyana, offering fares as low - they say - as US$9.99! Considering that the lowest fare that Caribbean Airlines offers over the same route is US$227 - more than 20 times more expensive - REDjet is clearly a consumer's dream. Should the Govern-ment permit this airline to operate, those of us consumers who often travel east should sing their praises, lauding them for acting in the best interests of the Jamaican consumers.

But that is not the case. The Government has made it clear that should REDjet operate on routes now travelled by Caribbean Airlines, that airline could not compete, and might be forced to close down, throwing dozens of people out of work. And since that is unthinkable, all sorts of reasons will be found to delay (or fail) to issue REDjet a permit to operate.

In whose interest is this? Certainly not the Jamaican consumer! The Jamaican Government is part-owner of Caribbean Airlines. Clearly, it is putting its own financial interest before the interest of the Jamaican voter, the Jamaican consumer. This is a clear case of the interest of the Government being in conflict with the interest of the travelling public. [The same conflict exists with the toll roads, in which profits the Government shares]. This is the classical definition of a conflict of interest, and is another corruption scandal in the making.

In both cases I have described, the Government is acting in its own interest, and against the interest of its citizens: in the first case, its agricultural producers, and in the second, Jamaicans with business and other links with the Eastern Caribbean.

What is interesting is that in both cases, it is businessmen - donors to the party - who are being disadvantaged. Are they getting their money's worth? Or will they have to give more to stay alive?

What is even more interesting is that the Opposition has not come out in support either of the agricultural producers, or REDjet and the travelling public. But then, it was the Opposition which set up the conflict of interest with the toll road, a good deal for the highway operators.

When will our governments operate in our interest for a change?

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and Roman Catholic deacon. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.