Justice in a Developing Country's Perspective

Justice in a Developing Country’s Perspective Michael Manley

We heard with great pleasure some time ago that the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches had decided to honour Jamaica by meeting in our country. It was also a source of particular personal pleasure to me since I had had the unique privilege of sharing thoughts with the participants at your Fifth Assembly some three years ago.

After Nairobi, I gather the Central Committee adopted four major programme emphases for the Council’s work now and in the immediate future. These emphases: “The expression and communication of our faith in the triune God”; “The search for a just, participatory and sustainable society”; “The unity of the Church and its relation to the unity of humankind”; and finally “Education and renewal in search for true community”, are all inter- related and indeed reflect the Church’s equal concern to express its Christian faith and join in the practical attempt to build societies founded on justice and democratic participation.

I know that since the Nairobi Assembly, an advisory committee of dis- tinguished scholars and theologians has been looking in some detail at one of the emphases: “The search for a just, participatory and sustainable society”, and that you will be discussing the report later in this meeting. I mention these developments because we are all very pleased to note the increasing shift in emphasis in the Christian Church from the philosophical debate about social activism to a concern that activist intentions should be effective.

Defining justice in international context I should like to say a few words about justice in society from the perspective

of a developing country. May I begin with a comment on the juxtaposition of the words “just”, “participatory” and “sustainable”. I have always thought

The Hon. MICHAEL MANLEY is Prime Minister of Jamaica. This is the text of the address he gave to the WCC‘s Central Committee, which met in Kingston, January 1-11, 1979. 146

JUSTICE IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY’S PERSPECTIVE

this a particularly useful formulation because justice in the widest social sense is the only enduring basis for the viability of any form of human society; and a society which is not participatory is unlikely to pursue the objectives of justice in the long run.

We cannot attempt tonight to explore, in the light of contemporary understanding, all that we mean by justice; nor can we attempt an analysis of the various institutions through which the concept of participatory democ- racy is being explored in various parts of the world, and within widely differing social systems. What is clear, however, is that those societies which are defining social justice most widely, and which are using their scarce resources with a firm eye upon justice thus defined, are proving to be the most stable and successful.

I suppose it is true that this is an age which attaches less and less credit to the superficial blandishments of systems which reflect variants on the theme of the benevolent despot. Those systems which build schools and hospitals while excluding their people from decision-making in the community, the work-place and the nation, find that human beings today increasingly refuse to accept the notion that “father knows best” - or Big Brother for that matter.

In short, dictatorship can no longer hope to be judged by its work alone; it can no longer assume that kindly paternalism confers acceptability. Modern history is replete with examples of autocratic or dictatorial systems under siege precisely because modernization, schools and hospitals are proving to be no substitute for the participation of the people in the workings of the system that orders their lives.

It is necessary, however, to indicate what one means by a viable society, since everything else in the equation turns upon that. I would like to suggest that any viable society must rest on firm and mutually reinforcing moral and logical foundations which ensure its continuous progressive and peaceful development.

It is probably fair to say that there have been steady advances in the understanding of the particular nexus between viability, justice and participation in the course of the last generation. Certainly, a tremendous amount of thought has been directed by philosophers, political scientists, political economists and even economists, to the subject. What is less well explored because it is a more recent question is how these equations, which have exer- cised people’s minds in the comparatively narrow national context, apply in the wider, international context. This is not surprising. Presumably, if one goes back far enough in history, one will find that the recognition of responsibility in the dealings of one human being with another was first clearly perceived within family groups. The perception presumably later spread to communal groupings such as tribes and thence to more complex forms of social organization and, thus, finally, to the nation state as we know it today. Hence, “My brother’s keeper” traces its historical lineage back to a literal origin in the family.

The task of humanitarian politics since then has consisted in how to extend the definition of my “brother” and “sister” to situations which are increasingly remote in personal terms though involving the same imperatives for social and 147

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

even personal behaviour. And this is a formidable task. It is easy for people to understand why they have a responsibility towards the members of their family and can expect to be reciprocal beneficiaries. But obviously the larger and more complex the social group, the more differentiated and remote are its members and the more difficult the feat of political understanding becomes among them, even in the context of a national crisis.

Jamaica’s moves towards participatory society The truth is today, however, that the nation whose people have not begun

to have some understanding of their mutual and common political responsibility as the cornerstone of organized society, is the exception. And such a nation is a backward one, at that. The fact that this is so owes as much to a general perception of the reality of interdependence as it does to political education. Indeed, it is not so much the task of politics to teach the meaning of interdependence within a society, as to articulate how the various claims and interests of different groups may be reconciled, since all have to occupy the same social system and, in the last analysis, all depend on each other.

Movement towards just relationships in an interdependent society is retarded by the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the various groups that make up that society. But in the long run, in history, there is a logic in an interdependence which provides an opportunity for the weak and places limitations upon the power of the strong. The more quickly a society resorts to participatory methods as a way of reconciling these conflicts, the more quickly it will proceed to justice, and the more viable it should become in maintaining internal peace and stability by consensus. But I suggest that these distinctions between the responses of different societies to the challenges we all face do not affect the general validity of the argument.

Here in Jamaica, we have introduced a number of radical changes to try to reconcile the conflicts that have been part of our history and experience. We are increasingly introducing participatory methods in the organization and administration of our society and institutions. We have been introducing a strong cooperative element in society, particularly in the sugar industry. We have drawn up guidelines for worker participation, with the actual pace of implementation dependent not on governmental direction but on the speed with which workers, management and unions are ready to build the new institutions and accept new levels of responsibility. We are also attempting to establish community councils as rapidly as communities are mobilized to work and solve problems on a cooperative basis.

I mention these developments, not to identify the tremendous and overdue changes needed in the structure of our economy and society, but rather because they illustrate our commitment to the deepening of the democratic process while maintaining the strictest traditional democratic procedures in our parliament, our legal system, our press and our religious observance. In short, this country is in the process of making a choice in favour of participatory methods as we seek to build a more just society. Only time will tell, of course, whether the attempt is viable.

When we consider the relationship between states - because we understand our enquiry to include the wider international society-I believe the same 148


problems and equations apply. As production and exchange have grown ever more complex through history, social organization has developed more and more complex forms to provide appropriate frameworks for the more sophisticated economies which emerged.

Disparities in today’s interdependence The world is now at a historical juncture of great interest and importance

because the processes of production and exchange have become so complex as to involve the whole of humankind in what is more and more a single exer- cise. Raw materials, intermediate goods, capital goods, methods of transport and communication, technology, capital, increasingly interact in a manner that has consequences for everyone on the other side of the globe though, obviously, not every economic act in a given place always affects every other place.

Thus, we now have a world that has become interdependent in the way in which this was true of the nation state in another age. But in today’s world there are terrible disparities in power and wealth and hence in opportunity between the various national sections that make up this interdependent whole. However, equally, as with the nation state, the reality of interdependence places limitations upon the power of the strong and provides opportunities for the weak. We have contended that nations act most widely where they recognize that serious disparities within and between them in power, wealth and opportunity do not make for an acceptable and viable social organization. I believe the world community is just beginning to understand that this prin- ciple is equally true of this interdependent globe which we jointly occupy.

However in trying to do something about the disparities at the international level, we come up against difficulties a thousand times greater than those at the national level. Here we confront the divisive particularisms produced by differences of culture, language, history, location, area, population, ecology, resources and wealth that together define national interests. Add to that further differences of political ideology, economic organization, technological level and religion, and you can then form some preliminary idea of the enormous complexity and apparent intractability that confronts those who cham- pion the politics of humankind as a whole in an arena of competing nation- states, multinational corporations, universal religions and radically opposed political and economic ideologies.

Foundations of the ME0 The New International Economic Order (NIEO) represents a set of pro-

posals, founded on a recognition of global interdependence and frankly seeking to provide greater opportunities for the weak and the poor, while inviting the rich and strong to design and institute self-restraints on the use of their power and wealth in the interests of the viability of humanity as a whole - a single group.

The proposals for an NIEO stand on two clear foundations as, indeed, do all significant political propositions. Firstly there is the moral foundation. I do not believe that one should ever compromise in this area. However 149


pragmatic may be the arguments that can be advanced in favour of the idea that I am “my brother’s keeper”, however practical the illustrations through which the appeal to commonsense is made, we are left with a residual moral proposition about the nature of the human being, about right and wrong and, ultimately, about the universal human order, or its alternative -the destruc- tion and chaos that we all face. I do not believe that I must try to be good because it is probably more inconvenient if I am bad. And I admit that it is very often difficult to tell the difference between good action and bad action. If I am both modest and thoughtful, I will recognize that I have probably often confused the two, and that I may not be alone in my mistake. What is important is that I must be concerned with the endless ethical struggle to tell the difference, and must be concerned to struggle endlessly to act in terms of the differences that I perceive. Similarly, the NIEO has a foundation in moral precept just as does the notion of fair trial, the notion of equal opportunity, the notion of fair prices, or the notion of prescribed standards of quality.

Secondly, the NIEO represents a set of pragmatic proposals that recognize the interdependence of the global community and assert that the people of the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States of America, Hungary and Mozambique, Cuba or Jamaica, for example, will all have a safer, a more secure and a more prosperous future if we bend our political efforts to the fashioning of means of production and exchange that are designed to achieve more equitable results. As is the case with the nation state, I have no doubt that we will proceed more rapidly to the achievement of that goal if we can set up the international institutions through which each member of the family of nations can participate in some relevant way in the taking of international economic decisions.

And now for a quick look at the proposals themselves. These fall into three broad categories. Firstly, we deal with the question of international trade and the international division of labour. Secondly, we deal with the question of the transfer of resources, of finance and technology. This includes the operations of the multinational financial institutions, the development of science and technology and, of course, the future development of energy sources. And, thirdly, there is the special problem of the transnational corporations.

Obviously, I will not attempt an exhaustive examination of these subjects but I would like to indicate a few of the essential elements.

The Common Fund - a step towards equitable trade If we cast our minds back over history, we can all remember the time

when even the most developed of today’s more developed group of nations were racked with internal problems arising from the uneven distribution of the benefits of economic activity. I am not speaking of the more obvious symptoms of an unequal distribution like the accumulation of private fortunes, but of the imbalance between whole sectors by comparison with others.

The North American or European farmer, for example, has had long periods of history in which his group stagnated while new industrial cities acquired enormous accumulations of capital. Besides, farmers and other producers of primary commodities within these social systems would suffer 150


the acute instability of “boom and bust” conditions which made a mockery of any attempt at forward social planning on either the individual or even the community basis.

In the end, these situations cried out for political management to resolve the tremendous contradictions within particular societies which they represent- ed. So, most nation states have for some time recognized that free market forces cannot be allowed to dictate whether or not their farmers starve and, indeed, to a greater or lesser degree countries manage their economies to ensure a certain stability of income to the producing sectors of their societies. No such mechanisms exist to regulate international trade as a system. It is true that tentative steps in the form of a few commodity agreements have been taken by the international community over the years to try and bring minimum stability to buyers and sellers of selected commodities. These commodity agreements have had a chequered and not particularly successful history. The Common Fund, one of the centrepieces of the NIEO, represents an attempt to introduce order into this system. This concept of a common fund with a wide range of related international commodity agreements has been the subject of intensive negotiations in Geneva over the past couple of years.

The Fund could just conceivably materialize in the not too distant future on terms which, although not satisfactory to the developing countries, would at least represent a philosophical “break-through”. Its creation would show that the international community has begun to accept the need for stable conditions and equitable terms in the trading relationships between rich and poor countries.

Acting through its related commodity agreements, the Fund would at least permit the accumulation of stocks of particular commodities like tin, rubber, cotton, sugar and so on. The buying of these stocks would support prices when they tended to fall below certain levels and, of course, the stocks would help to protect consumers by being available for sale when the prices go above certain limits. Both the upper and the lower levels would be worked out by negotiation between producing and consuming nations within the particular commodity agreement. At the same time, the Fund would have a special window that would assist producers, particularly in developing countries, to increase their efficiency, their marketing, their research, and even the possi- bility of diversifying the uses to which particular commodities can be put.

This, obviously, is no panacea and one must be cautious in estimating the contribution it can make to the problem of developing countries. Hopefully, however, further negotiations will result in substantial international resources being created for an effective scheme of compensatory financing for the producers of primary commodities whose trading positions have been seriously eroded by metropolitan inflation.

Markets essential for maintaining employment It would be sad if we were to have some measure of success in establishing

a common fund and effective commodity agreements, as well as measures for compensatory financing, and at the same time were restricted in our access to the markets of developed countries by tariff and non-tariff measures. No charity is being sought by the developing countries in this area. It is said 151


that two million jobs have been lost in western Europe over the last few years as a result of the growing inability of developing countries to buy from the developed world. Freedom of access to the markets of developed countries will increase our capacity to buy from them and encourage them to concentrate on the areas of high technology where for a long time their resources and ingenuity will be desperately needed by the poor of the world.

A new and rational world economic system would demand that a number of low technology and labour intensive industries be given up by the developed world, which is so much better able to redeploy and retrain its work force. So often when jobs are lost in the poor countries of the world, the worker is literally thrown on the street. This is what interdependence is about: a cons- ciously planned development of complementarity to ensure that we do become our brother’s keeper, but in a pragmatic framework which would benefit both our brother and ourselves.

One is aware that access to the markets of a developed country by the competitive products of developing countries poses a serious, short-term political difficulty. Jobs are threatened. Unions, workers, employers and even the general public unite to put pressure on the government affected, demanding protectionist policies as a defensive measure. But one has to consider the implications for the two sets of countries involved. A developed country threatened with loss of jobs, say, in some aspects of its textile industry, has three structures in place with which to deal with the problem.

Firstly, a social security system which can provide an income base to affected families. Secondly, educational resources which can be engaged in the retraining of affected workers. Third, there is a complex and highly developed productive system with many other areas to which workers can be transferred.

For the developing country, the situation is entirely different. It probably cannot yet afford a social security system. Its educational resources are probably already strained beyond the limit of what they can bear; and the textile industry, which may be threatened with closure because its export markets are denied to it, may represent the first excursion by that society into a more complex area of production. If its textile factory closes, the affected workers probably face a return to the ranks of the unemployed and hungry.

What is even more irrational, however, is that the developing country which has the opportunity to expand industrially, becomes a new source of demand for all of the more sophisticated products of the economy of the developed country. A textile worker out of a job in a developed country would be needed to expand the production of machinery, of spare parts, and of more sophisticated products, precisely to fill the demand of expanding third world economies. Thus, the kind of choice that faces us in our interdependent relationship is that between the developed and developing joining each other in a general and largely self-induced stagnation, or working together to secure an enlargement of total world economic activity, the benefits of which are shared by the people of both types of countries.

152


Exciting possibilities for world development When we turn to the question of transfer of resources and of development

assistance, we see another striking example of the difference between interdependence seen narrowly and acted upon grudgingly, and interdependence seen as providing a great canvas of creative opportunity for people to explore together. Your studies will reveal that the international community set itself a target. That target called for the tranfer of resources through development assistance from developed to developing countries of 0.7 of 1% of the Gross National Product of the developed countries by 1980. Far from moving in this direction, many of the major developed countries still provide development assistance more in the area of 0.2 and 0.3 of 1%. Ironically, many of the smaller developed countries like the Scandinavian group have already exceeded the target of 0.7, and some are now giving more than 1% of their Gross National Product.

Here, we have a problem that has to be analysed very carefully. Most development assistance takes the form of what minimum aid a particular nation thinks it ought to contribute in the light of purposes that are conceived of as akin to charity, and with the probable net effect that they avert social disaster in various parts of the globe. This is the response to interdependence narrowly conceived. The result of this approach is that many developing countries are unable to overcome their serious deficiencies at the level of infrastructure, to handle the immense problems of structural transformation while coping with instability in commodity prices and a chronic deterioration in the terms of trade.

Quite apart from the limited but important advantages that the Common Fund would confer, these countries need a heavy injection of capital and technology. If this transfer of resources is to be politically viable, it can no longer be conceived in exploitative terms. Rather, it must move from rich to poor country in order to raise the capacity of the latter to contribute to world economic activity in a meaningful way. This is not charity. This is interdependence constructively understood and applied, became a contributing nation is one which has the capacity to demand goods and services at a level undreamed of in its earlier stage.

Such is the nature of the international division of labour that we can be sure that development assistance at a level capable of assisting developing countries to the point of economic take-off can only be for the benefit of everyone.

At this moment, I believe that many of the people in the developing countries see overseas assistance as a sort of irritating minor drain on their national resources. They probably also see this as something they will have to endure for the rest of time. The mood is one of resignation, reminiscent of the ancient phrase “the poor are always with us”.

What is needed is a quantum leap in political perception which will lift us all from the present frustration to the threshold of new and exciting possibilities which are there to be seized. The day that we begin to release the sleeping giant of third world economic potential is the day that humanity will enter a new phase of unprecedented and far more equitable economic expan- sion. 153


A companion piece to all of this, of course, is how to provide for increasing participation by developing countries in the decision-making of the world’s international economic institutions. The International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank), and the transnational corporations all represent new forms of institutional arrangements which profoundly affect the lives of literally billions of people. Yet their decisions are controlled almost exclusively from within the dominating power structures of a few members of the developed world.

Economic power and racism It is not lost to the discerning eye that some myopic, narrow and selfish

view of economic self-interest has led to the survival of those monstrous aberrations which persist in South Africa. Although not our subject here, I pray the good Lord in his wisdom to strengthen our arm in all that we undertake to bring that horror of racism and minority rule to an end. To all those who have understandable scruples about the armed struggle, I say only: See that those who control the levers of economic power have the power to bring about justice peacefully and there will not be the need for firing one shot. In the meantime, I speak as a Christian and, in spite of my own deep personal antipathy to violence, I feel impelled to assist the liberation armies in their armed struggle to which they have been forced by the indifference of the rest of mankind.

And as to the church and the NIEO, it is equally my prayer that you will bend your efforts increasingly to educate all those citizens who come within earshot to understand the meaning of interdependence and the creative opportunities which it provides for the exploration of new economic and social vistas by all of humanity.

There is no sense in which the precept and programme of action and the possibilities that inhere in this attempt to create a more just and a more participatory world society fail to accord with Christian social ethics. There never was a cause to which church and state, prelate and politician could devote their joint endeavours with greater moral certainty and it is the supreme political task of our time.

154

Documents

Justice in a Developing Country's Perspective