President of the Opposition PNP, Mark Golding, recently raised the issue of democratic socialism, which was espoused by former Prime Minister Michael Manley in the 1970s, and promoted it as an excellent phenomenon that is seeing a re-emergence.

Mr. Golding was met with swift backlash from people who had experienced the painful consequences of the policies of the time and those who have researched the era extensively.

Ostensibly stung by the opprobrium his comments received, Golding made the curious move of alleging that he had been lied upon by the Gleaner, which he accused of having “fabricated” a headline and opening paragraph to convey that he had promised an embrace of the democratic socialist policies promoted in Jamaica almost sixty years ago by his political idol, Michael “Joshua” Manley.

I was among those who reminded the PNP President of the painful and enduring consequences for the Jamaican masses of the then PNP administration’s pursuit of democratic socialist ideological policies, which he appeared to embrace but later resiled from when met with public consternation.

I offered no comment on the PNP President’s decision to throw under the proverbial bus a media entity which, some might argue, did not deserve that treatment, given its consistent kindness to him and its Chairman’s public endorsement of his political aspirations. However, I stated that Jamaica should not go back to the democratic socialist policies which Mr. Golding had touted.

It was entirely predictable that individuals whose convenient and facile presentation of the facts may lead a reasonable man or woman to conclude that they are, indeed, apologists and fanatics of Mr Manley’s 1970s ideological misadventure would have objected to my outline of the consequences of the referenced policies.

The apparent fanatics and apologists who reacted to my statement with excuses for the devastating consequences of the failed ideological experiment included Simon Crosskill, for whom I have much respect.

Also among those who cried foul following my comments were my former colleague in the media fraternity, H.G. Helps, and Carol Narcisse, who is sometimes described by the media as a political commentator, but whose consistently selective posturing on public issues has caused many on social media to question the legitimacy of that branding.

Messrs Crosskill and Helps were also entirely predictable in their opening salvos. Both mentioned that I was born in 1989 and am 37 years old and, hence, was likely misinformed about the 1970s era and the ideological policies I had criticised and their consequences.

I have long recognised that raising the issue of a person’s length of time on earth is a weak strategy often deployed by a few members of Crosskill and Helps’ generation to dismiss arguments advanced by members of a younger generation who have taken the time to conduct extensive research and engage in pertinent consultations, and whose positions they cannot otherwise credibly discredit with facts. Therefore, I smiled when I heard and read the opening salvos of both men, which were remarkably, but not surprisingly, similar.

Mr Crosskill also raised the issue of my salary as a member of the political executive. I now advise him that when I decided to serve in the political arena, I took a substantial pay cut. That is a decision I neither lament nor regret, but stand by.

Beyond those limp attempts to distract from the credibility of my arguments, which were deployed by persons clearly stung by my outline of the consequences of bad PNP government policy of yesteryear, the substance of what Crosskill, Helps and Narcisse posited is that critics of the devastating consequences of Mr Manley’s policies of the 1970s should also highlight the good policies of the era. Miz. Narcisse called for “mature” dialogue.

Messrs Helps and Crosskill also essentially asked Jamaicans to accept that former Prime Minister Manley’s policies failed because of global oil shocks and external geopolitical influences, which were features of the politics of that era and continue to affect global politics.

I have no difficulty accepting that some of the policies of the 1970s, including free education and the establishment of mechanisms through which Jamaicans from all walks of life could own homes, among others, are deserving of credit. However, that is what governments are expected to do: implement policies which are transformational and augur well for the masses.

However, for the apparent apologists for the abysmal failings of the mentioned era to argue that, because some commendable initiatives were implemented by an administration, it should be insulated from criticism and accountability for pursuing policies which caused painful consequences for our country and set our economy back by approximately fifty years is disingenuous and simply not a credible argument.

The perversity of the aforementioned posture is especially evident when it is considered that the consequences included capital flight, major devaluation of the dollar, increased inflation, price increases, empty supermarket shelves, a spike in unemployment, a rise in the national debt and socioeconomic circumstances which were conducive to, and indeed resulted in, a spike in violent crime and the loss of thousands of Jamaican lives.

Helps and Crosskill’s clear but blind fondness for the failed democratic socialist policies which underpinned the Manley era of the 1970s is undermined by their very presentation of Mr. Manley as a visionary leader with a suite of effective policies which, unfortunately, fell prey to oil shocks and external intervention.

It must be appreciated that an important component of visionary leadership is the ability to accurately assess the likely consequences of policies, positions and bravado, as well as their potential impact on the masses, and to make decisions accordingly, including deciding whether to proceed with or immediately abandon a particular course. This has always been a standard by which good leadership is judged by objective minds.

I submit that, even in the 1970s, it did not take much vision or foresight to assess the devastating implications that Jamaica’s pursuit of leftist and/or democratic socialist policies would have had for the masses. It did not take Einstein-esque cerebral acumen or political instincts to comprehend that beating our chest in a then-hostile geopolitical climate was never a good idea and was not in the interest of our people.

Furthermore, it did not take special insight to know that the geopolitical headwinds would have been fierce and proven insurmountable for our then very young post-independence economy to withstand. Sound leadership also involves pursuing policies which prepare a country to deal with the potential for external shocks.

Consequently, Crosskill and Helps’ presentation of geopolitics and oil shocks as the reasons for the failure of the attempt to sustain democratic socialism in the 1970s, and their use of these factors as primary excuses for the referenced devastating consequences, is nonsensical, lacks credibility and appears to be an attempt to sanitise history because, at the time, their then-impressionable minds might have been caught up in the euphoric appeal of Mr. Manley’s rhetoric.

It appears that the pungent scent of the rhetoric was so powerful that it has lingered in their minds despite the passage of approximately sixty years and affected their preparedness to offer frank and, to borrow a word used by Miz. Narcisse, “mature” and fact-oriented analysis of the democratic socialist misadventure to which Jamaica was subjected.

For emphasis, it is worth repeating that a critical component of sound leadership is the ability to accurately assess the likely impact and consequences of policies, plans and the direction in which it is contemplated that a country should be led. I suspect Messrs Crosskill and Helps know this, which is why, in both of their postulations, they failed to reiterate to the public that even Mr. Manley accepted that he had made a grave error in judgement, eventually changed course and established a rapprochement with the United States administration.

It is worth noting that, after returning to power in 1989 for his second stint as Prime Minister, Mr. Manley adopted a much more pragmatic, pro-market approach and actively pursued warm, cooperative relations with our major trading partner, the United States, from the outset of his term.

The judicious, perceptive and sound leadership alluded to above was missing in the 1970s. It is this type of leadership that has enabled the Jamaica Labour Party administration of Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness to maintain a stable economy and avoid cataclysmic hyperinflation, devaluation of the dollar and an insurmountable rise in the cost of living that could trigger socioeconomic collapse, despite the hopefully once-in-a-generation COVID-19 pandemic, Hurricane Beryl, the war in Europe, frequent violent conflict in the Middle East and Hurricane Melissa, which wiped out 55 per cent of GDP.

This carefully cultivated stability, despite multiple recurring and overlapping crises, has been heavily influenced and supported by an intentional policy which has resulted in Jamaica having unprecedented levels of Net International Reserves (NIR).

In closing, I am not surprised that Helps states that the 1970s were the best time in his life. Jamaicans should recall that this was a time of tremendous pain for our people and an era when the PNP administration was locking up its political opponents without just cause and thereby posing a threat to the good functioning of our Jamaican state.

In case they are inclined to reintroduce age into this debate, I am sure that Simon and H.G. do not believe they are less capable of advancing credible views on slavery or past world wars because they were not born in those eras. Lest we forget, reading and research maketh the man and woman.

I also remind Simon and H.G., and their fellow apologists for the failed democratic socialist populist policies of the 1970s, that many members of the generation of which I am a part support pragmatic and practical policies which assist in the advancement of the masses and do not inflict unbearable pain upon our people, whether by virtue of their direct or indirect implications. We will not be silent about what we stand for and what we do not want repeated.

We support judicious leadership and will not be diminished by cursory allusions which may be viewed by objective minds among ‘John and Jill Public’ as transparent attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of the Jamaican people as they assess the credibility of our fact-oriented arguments.

Hopefully, both men will be guided by the aforementioned and govern themselves accordingly.

Senator Abka Fitz-Henley is State Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister, Chairman of the Jamaica Labour Party’s Communication Taskforce and a multi-award-winning media practitioner who retired from the vocation at 32 years old.