Progressive Agenda and Ian Boyne

Delano Franklyn, Contributor

The Progressive Agenda of the People's National Party (PNP) is now out. So, too, are the critics.

The critics to be most aware of are those who are quick to say they are neutral, balanced, and objective, but in fact, on closer examination, they are in support of the arrogant 'Goldingnisation' of the country. These persons are also the first to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being tribal. Further, let us not be fooled by their self-proclamation of being non-partisan.

Let us take, for example, the column, inches of spin spun by my good friend, Ian Boyne, in his article captioned, 'A non-Progressive Agenda', published in this newspaper on August 21. His opening paragraph reads thus:

"The long-awaited, highly anticipated, much-touted Progressive Agenda was finally unveiled - to an apparently widespread 'what's that?' yawn among non-partisans and Labourites."

First, note the trick words "apparently widespread 'what's that?''' and "among non-partisans and Labourites". Boyne has sought to establish, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, that the Progressive Agenda has been met with an 'apparently widespread 'what's that?'' What is his basis for determining 'widespread'?

The second trick: Boyne could not escape saying that the Progressive Agenda is being criticised by Labourites because that is expected. So for good measure, and in order to set up his 'straw man', he throws in "non-partisans". What Boyne has done, again without any shred of evidence, is to say that all non-partisan persons are against the Progressive Agenda.

Different Positions - PNP/JLP

According to Boyne, there is nothing in the Progressive Agenda which "separates and marks off the PNP from the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP)", and that "so many of the generalities, platitudes, and clichés which inundate this document can easily be found in documents produced under a JLP administration".

Apart from the publication of manifestos by both the JLP and the PNP prior to an election, the PNP, in recent times, has published the 'Compass' in 1990, the '21st-Century Document' in 1999, and now the 'Progressive Agenda', at all times seeking to give a perspective of the party's intent. What has the JLP produced which would give the country an idea of the thinking of its leadership?

Second, as admitted by Boyne himself, the Progressive Agenda was arrived at after broad consultation, inside and outside of the party. This process typifies one of the finest traditions about what is progressive, and that is to engage in the principled act of consultation. This is unlike the approach of the JLP, which usually does not engage in any form of consultation, and if Boyne disbelieves me, he can go and ask the teachers, the nurses, the doctors, the police, and the public sector groups in general.

Role of the State

Boyne's main point in his article, however, boils down to one thing, and one thing only: the role of the State in national development.

Boyne claims that the Progressive Agenda calls for a weak state in the national developmental process. Boyne argues for a more aggressive role for the State. In support of his position, he quotes paragraph after paragraph from the World Development Report (1997), The Economist (March 19, 2011), World Investment Report (2011), the 'New African' (2011), and Joseph Stiglitz's 'Freefall: America, Free Markets and the Sinking of the World Economy'.

In all the material identified by Boyne, the authors, to one degree or another, are found grappling with what exactly should be the role of the State in national development. This is nothing new. This issue has been, and will continue to be, the bane of political leaders, academicians, and 'experts' for years to come. None of the authors identified by Boyne makes absolutist statements.

Boyne's penchant for lifting words leads to him lifting only what suits him. As an example, in his criticism of the section of the Progressive Agenda which deals with the role of the State, Boyne argues: "It sees only a catalytic role for the State in situations where the private sector deems risks to be uneconomic", but he ignores the line before that which reads, "However, as has been proven recently, markets can and do fail, and, therefore, must be sensitively, and sensibly regulated for the benefit of the nation as a whole."

The Progressive Agenda is saying two things, therefore: first, that the State will regulate the market; and second, that it will play a catalytic role in driving national development.

In none of the material identified by Boyne are the authors arguing for the State to assume control of the levers of production. Nor is the Progressive Agenda. In all the material identified by Boyne, the authors are arguing for a mix of policies. So is the Progressive Agenda. The difference, as is outlined in all the material, and as is the case in the Progressive Agenda, lies in the extent of the involvement of the State in the determination of national development.

Further, in his continued criticism of the Progressive Agenda, Boyne wrote: "In fact, without the PNP's trademark on it, knowing what I know about the PNP from Norman Manley's time, I would not be able to identify this document as a PNP document. I do not think Michael Manley would either." Really?

Michael Manley

This is what Michael Manley had to say in the 1990-published Compass (p 19):

"What is the new strategy? Firstly, it has been decided to pull the State back from direct activity in production. Next, it has been decided to liberalise the system, letting loose the market forces and enabling the private sector to grow larger by releasing its energy and growth potential."

For Michael Manley, the role of the State in the 1990s had to be far different from the statist orientation which the PNP followed in the 1970s. Manley also argued in his 1989 and 1991 Budget presentations that he had no choice but to adjust to what he saw as the new geopolitical realities.

Boyne asserts that the Progressive Agenda is underpinned in its economic construct by neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism has hardly, or any, role at all, for the State. Neoliberalism relies totally and completely on market forces for growth and development. If the Progressive Agenda can be accused of being liberal, it is in its promotion of progressive liberalism. Progressive, because the PNP is not afraid to assert the role of the State, either in the regulation of the market, or as a catalytic force for national development. Liberal, because it realises that economic growth cannot take place without the creative involvement of the private sector. One of the critical lessons to be learnt from the 1970s is that the stability required for economic growth will not be achieved by the State ignoring or being hostile to any social class or sector of the society.

Conclusion

Political parties all over the world are struggling for relevance. Poll after poll shows the declining support for political parties. In order to connect with the people, political parties are required to constantly renew themselves. This manifests itself in how political parties rethink their positions and how they deal with existing and emerging issues.

It is, therefore, not by choice that the PNP was very deliberate in taking a consultative approach in the formulation of the Progressive Agenda. People from all walks of life contributed to its final outcome. They contributed a lot of ideas, because they do have a lot of ideas. Boyne's condescending remarks that "what's fortunate for the PNP is that the masses are not into ideas" is an underestimation of our people. It is a view held by some in the society, who, because they are able to lift one or two sentences from a book or an article, believe that they are big on ideas and the masses are not.

However, by so arguing, Boyne has left the door open. At the start of his article, he triumphantly declared that the non-partisans and Labourites have rejected the Progressive Agenda. He further declared that it is no different from what the JLP is offering. The logic, therefore, is that if the PNP is offering nothing different, why elect the PNP? But Boyne, like some others, realises that the tide is turning, so just in case the JLP is rejected and the PNP is elected in the next election, it would have happened because the masses are not into ideas. In other words, they were not thinking.

Delano Franklyn is an attorney-at-law and member of the PNP. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and delanofranklyn@gmail.com.