The recent Gleaner/Bill Johnson poll said that 50 per cent of Jamaicans did not want a general election now, and quite a bit less, 39 per cent did. Does it really matter? A new regime is to take power in Jamaica soon anyway. It is the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It is not going to be elected either. The proper and appropriate definition of 'regime' is "a set of conditions, most often of a political nature" where these conditions are set within rules that "regulate the operation of government and its interactions with society".

When we think of the IMF we think of rules and conditions. The distinction between government and IMF in this sense is a purely artificial one. Taken together, they comprise a 'regime'. It is they, IMF and government, that make the rules that will govern our economic life for the next few years. They make the terms and conditions for their own engagement (IMF-GOJ Agreement) and for the interaction of the regime (the Government, being the face of the regime) with society, particularly of a fiscal nature. Almost every interaction that involves goods and services of government does.

powerful decision makers

None of this requires an election. It is an error to believe that governments and the regimes of which they are a part only reflect the will of the people. It might be the intention of democrats that this be so, but it is regimes that reflect the will of people and those people are not necessarily the electorate. They are usually the most powerful decision makers, nationally and globally. They make the many rules that comprise national and international regimes. They represent military, financial and political powers that structure and enforce the world order.

The question we should be asking is not whether the IMF has changed its conditionalities, but whether the IMF has changed as an institution of global governance. Is it more transparent? Is it more accountable? If it is then its conditionalities become secondary. We could always hold it to account and change the rules if they don't work. If not, then a gaping democratic deficit exists between the powerful decision makers in the IMF and our government and the rest of us who will suffer the consequences of their decisions.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE PARTNERS

The Jamaican government, already guilty of being reactive rather than proactive towards the economic crisis, is also guilty of too passively accepting the IMF regime. It could do better to construct a regime that balances economic and social objectives. In 1987, the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), which works for children's rights, produced a landmark report famously called Structural Adjustment with a Human Face. It laid out policy recommendations to minimise the impact of structural adjustment on the social sector, particularly health, education and the environment.

In addition, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) reshaped its agenda this year to respond to the economic crisis. Its central theme was that economic recovery and job creation should go hand in hand. Jobs, in turn, should be governed by the 'decent work agenda'. It proposed coherent policies to support a global job pact, a global job fund, a vulnerability fund and a new architecture for international aid among international partners, including the IMF.

UNICEF and the ILO are agencies of the United Nations just as the IMF is. They should be asked to join the dialogue with Jamaica to construct a regime that would protect children, the aged, and workers and their families. The lessons of crude, cruel and failed IMF policies learned from the past must help to guide us towards new interactions between government and society.

At an ILO conference in June this year, Golding said it was time for a new global planning and decision-making structure. But surprisingly, he said it should include the IMF and World Bank, which it already does and there is nothing progressive about their role. He also said it should include the ILO, but has done nothing to include the ILO in the Jamaican regime.

NATIONAL PARTNERS

In order for one to take Golding seriously he would have to demonstrate a commitment to bringing our national social and labour partners into the Jamaican dialogue. Yet, too much secrecy surrounds talks with the IMF. Parliament has not been brought into the dialogue for a supplementary budget early enough. There was a unilateral wage freeze for the public sector. There is no respect for job pacts like the public sector MOU. The teachers have actually threatened to complain to the ILO and seek its intervention.

There is no national regime because there has been no national dialogue. There is no international regime of social and labour partners because that has not been explored. The democratic process in Jamaica has suffered and our governance regime is limited to that which the GOJ and the IMF agree on.

Democracy is not just a mechanical process that is determined by how well an electoral system works. It is also a psychological process by which people feel satisfied with government's exercise of its authority and deserves people's trust. People want to feel that their government has done its best to consult them in order to get the wisest advice, widest involvement, and most trust.

We have 127,000 youths 14 to 24 who are illiterate, uneducated and untrained. These young people will not feel satisfied that the new regime will be based on a job pact.

Mayor Hinds of Portmore said he needed money to clean certain drains. If those drains are not cleaned, 300 houses will be flooded in heavy rains.

The president of the Jamaica Teachers' Association says that, should his association settle for the offer being made by government, teachers will lose the real value of their salary because of inflation and devaluation.

Sixty-four per cent of Jamaicans said, in the recent Gleaner/Bill Johnson poll, that they are worse off today than they were two years ago and more than 80 per cent say they are no better off.

I mention these to say that democracy needs to balance the hopes for economic and social improvement of youths, public sector teachers, and people on a whole. For this it needs a more balanced regime. The IMF-GOJ programmes must have a human face, and an ILO programme would support jobs and decent work.

It is not true to say there is no alternative to the IMF. UNICEF and the ILO have programmes that the IMF does not have. The alternative is to build a new regime with global and national partners that can compensate for what the IMF prescription lacks. Indeed, with the right international diplomacy and the negotiating resources of those and other agencies like the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Development Programme, Jamaica could have mobilised forces to counter balance the IMF.

Government could have mobilised national partners for the same purpose. Strategically, we should have been trying to get the best of the IMF (balance of payments support) and what social partners could offer (social protection). That would have been the better regime change for us, with or without an election.

Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. Email: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm or columns@gleanerjm.com.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding and Dr Ana Teresa Romero, director of ILO Subregional Office for the Caribbean at the International Labour Organization Caribbean conference opening ceremony at The Jamaica Pegasus hotel, New Kingston, on April 1. - Rudolph Brown/freelance Photographer

Hinds