The question of a government’s legitimacy has always been a source of great controversy among

scholars. A legitimate government is one that is entitled to speak and act on the behalf of a state
however; this legitimacy must be derived from the people. Therefore, the government must be
derived from the people, be accountable to the people, be established in all the rule of law and
must embrace all the accepted norms of a democratic state. Only then will the government have
the legitimacy to speak on behalf of all the people. This correlates with Roskin’s definition of
legitimacy as “an attitude in people’s minds that the government’s rule is rightful” (p.3) and
therefore, even if we do not particularly like our government, we generally obey it “as it is
representative of the citizenry” (p.3). The state also derives its legitimacy from things such as the
age of its constitution, civil and political liberties.

The state is a critical part of the political system which includes the all social structures that
functions to provide collectively binding decisions in a society including political culture and
ideology. Cummings and Bogues argued that from this the “assumption can be drawn that a
society consist of many other systems, for example economic and social systems” (p.18) and that
central to this, is the apparatus of the state depicted by a specific set of institutions namely
governmental ,administrative, coercive and ideological. From this, it can be concluded that the
state has both power and authority, which is divided into the different branches of government
(Munroe, 2002). These are the legislative which has the power to make laws; the executive
which execute the laws and judiciary which determine whether the laws have been broken and
the necessary punishment to be inflicted. The judiciary is a part of the criminal justice system
which is inclusive of the correctional services and the security forces which is the coercive arm
of the government.

In the modern world, people assumed that a government is legitimate to the extent that its
structure is democratic and this is also characteristic of some states in the Caribbean Region. The
territories of the Anglophone Caribbean are classified as liberal/representative democracies with
codified constitutions, which are concerned with political authority and power, the distribution of
power between the institutions of government and between these institutions and the citizenry.

1
Barrows (2002) articulated that a democratic structure, has the following features, accountability
of the elected officials to the people, the rule of law which protects citizens from abuse by the
state and undue interference in their private lives, a guarantee to civil society of certain
fundamental rights of the citizens and the existence of constitutional, legal and practical
constraints on executive power. This should result in a favourable environment for the poor to
advance their political and economic interest, which can be achieved through collective action
and government measures aimed at reducing poverty.

Critics on the other hand, argued that although democratic institutions are stable, they often
function inefficiently and inconsistently with regard to the implementation of policies that
encourages equity and is also favorable to the poor. Thus to the critics democracy is incomplete
without equity enhancing mechanism. In the Caribbean one such mechanism that is employed is
the provision of material benefits to the citizens, especially those that are loyal party supporters
and special interest groups. Carl Stone conceptualized this as Clientelism. ‘Clientelism’ he said
is “built around a network of personal allegiances between multiple patrons, brokers and clients”
(p.97). This practiced has been widespread in Jamaica since the 1960’s.

A critical development in the Caribbean in the late 70’s and 80’s was the rise of foreign debt,
many Caribbean countries reeling from the effects of the oil crisis of that period, had turned to
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for assistance, and then watched hopelessly as the IMF
called for cut backs in public sector expenditure, a reduction of social services, and a freeze on
salaries that ultimately led to increased unemployment. What occurred next were open street
demonstrations, empty supermarket shelves and increasing violent crimes as in the cases of
Jamaica and Dominica (Richards,2009).

The recent international debt crisis has forced painful economic adjustments on the developing
world. In the short run it has forced governments to seek to correct payments imbalances through
stabilization programs, usually undertaken with conditional assistance from the International
Monetary Fund (IMF).This has resulted in a number of Caribbean countries Jamaica included
returning to the IMF for assistance. Jamaica’s previous borrowing relationship with the IMF
began in the 1970’s and ended in 1995.It was characterised by much hardships for the citizens as

2
a result of the harsh conditionalities attached to assistance by the IMF. Thus when Jamaica
completed payments to IMF there was a feeling of good riddance as was expressed by Prime
Minister Percival Patterson.

Bernal (1992), in his detailed analysis of the fund’s stabilization programmes in Jamaica during
1977-1984, said “that they failed to achieve their objectives of sustained economic growth,
balance-of-payments equilibrium and low inflation” (pg 64). This failure he argued was not
derived from inadequate duration of application or from faulty implementation but the failure
was directly related to the inappropriateness of the politics of deflation, deregulation and
devaluation to this type of an economy and to contradictions in the policy package.

According to Bernal, The Jamaican experience with International Monetary Fund (IMF)
stabilization programmes during the years 1977 to 1984 demonstrates their lack of efficacy and
the inappropriateness for externally vulnerable economies, which includes many developing
countries. Since the early 1980s, the introduction of International Monetary Fund-directed
structural adjustment packages to stabilize the Jamaican economy has reduced the scope of the
government, cut back its capacity to intervene in the housing market, opened the economy to
foreign goods (but limited capital), and re-produced the colonial version of a non-dynamic,
labour-surplus urban economy in Kingston (Vreeland 2003).

Barrow (2002), postulate the main features of the Structural Adjustment Program in Jamaica
were" liberalisation of trade and reduction of tariffs, liberalisation of exchange rates, reform of
public institutions, privatization of development institutions and constrained fiscal policy
through expenditure cuts, tax reforms and the sale of public assets” (p.7). Norman P. Girvan
argued that liberalisation associated with the IMF has affected the social sector in Jamaica in two
ways. On one hand, with macro-level impact devaluation, which has reduced the standard of
living, and on the other hand, with a sector-level impact, which has seen cuts in social services.
While Girvan acknowledges that liberalisation may have positive effects, he concludes that it has
had a greater negative rather than positive impact, given the serious deterioration of social
services in Jamaica between 1979 and 1991 (Barrow, 2002).

Research has shown that countries don’t perform well under IMF programmes. IMF policies
serve to dampen the effect of bad economic performance by redistributing income upward thus

3
rewarding the elites who are made better off even though the economy is not growing thus
doubly hurting the poor (Vreeland, 2003). However ,it is very important to note that although
the IMF was created to provide loan to its members (Jamaica is a member since 1963) whom are
facing payment deficits that its programmes have their ideological roots in western economic
and political philosophy, which underscore the importance of market-based developments over
state control and state intervention(Barrow, 2002).

Bogues and Cummings argued that the function of the state in the Caribbean as a source of
patronage and as a direct economic agent is presently under strain as a result of the structural
adjustment policies of the IMF which affects the states ability to take care of the most vulnerable
in the society and to reward party loyalist and special interest groups. As previously stated the
government of Jamaica as yet again sought assistance from the IMF to help with its debt
payments. In Jamaica’s letter of intent to the IMF Minister of Finance; the Honourable Audley
stated that “Jamaica for the past twenty (20) years has operated on a cycle of low growth and
huge debts” (I.M.F release, 43. P.1) and that the government had set about implementing a bold
and ambitious economic programme designed to deal with this debt. The government proposed
certain strategies to deal with the debt problem these included, the introduction of a third tax
package last fiscal year; an extension of the public sector wage freeze for two years;
rationalisation and reform of Jamaica's public entities, including divestments, mergers and
closures; execution of the debt exchange programme (Jamaica Debt Exchange Programme) and
the introduction of legislature to strengthen and implement tax reforms (IMF, website).

The government realized that this would have affected the poor and have pledged to increase its
social spending for targeted programs. This will be facilitated through the Program of
Advancement through Health and Education (PATH) which will see an estimated increase in its
budget of up twenty five percent (25%) due to a projected increase in the number of affected
persons by over thirty five thousand (35000) individuals (IMF, website). PATH benefits
currently range from a low of nine hundred dollars ($900) per month for a senior/disabled
citizen to a high of one thousand two hundred and sixty five dollars ($1265.00) per month for a
child. This comprises the two most vulnerable groups in the society.

4
The IMF impressed by the ambitious economic program presented by the Government of
Jamaica lauded the government for the strong measures they would be taking to maintain
economic stability. Consequently, a 27-month Stand-By Arrangement with Jamaica in the
amount of SDR 820.5 million (about US$1.27 billion) was approved (IMF, website). Bullock
(2010) in an article entitled ‘Fiscal Policy in a Time of Economic Crisis’ suggested that the, IMF
itself recognises severe "downside risks" to the programme but hopes successful implementation
of the structural changes may set off a virtuous train of positive outcomes. On examination of the
structural objectives of the programme it is evident that the underlying theme is cutting spending
in all facets of government. Reducing public sector employment, divestments and mergers raises
the issue of redundancy and loss of jobs. In an economy where (based on international labour
organization data 2010), only 38% of the workforce is employed, since July 2010, the
Government should be taking bold and innovative steps to create jobs and increase wealth and
prosperity for Jamaicans instead of cutting jobs.

As previously stated, any loans from the IMF have conditionalities attached to them and this last
one is no exception. These conditionalities are aimed at improving both macroeconomic and
structural conditions by reducing budget deficits and public debt and measures to strengthen the
financial sector. These are monitored through quarterly test by IMF and continuance in the
programme is dependent on the successful implementation of the relevant policies. Research has
shown that the conditionalities makes the programmes ineffective and does not contribute to the
growth of the countries, with the resultant effect of the poor getting poorer or increasing.

The conditionalities basically tie the government’s hands since the IMF dictates what the
government is allowed to spend on. Thus it is customary for the government’s to find itself in a
position of being unable to fulfill its role which is, efficiently delivering public services to its
citizens whilst providing for the most vulnerable of the society. When the government is unable
to deliver on its mandate it is heading for trouble. According to Roskin, trouble begins for any
government when that feeling of legitimacy erodes. Some of the things which contribute to the
erosion of legitimacy are, no or low economic growth, high unemployment rate and cut in
social services, like the education and medical facilities. When legitimacy is eroded “People feel
less obliged to pay their taxes and obey the law” The government is no longer seen as

5
representing the populace and massive civil disobedience can break out. Thus the legitimacy is
threatened.

In the case of Jamaica’s legitimacy it is threatened as a consequence of several factors, The

realization of the populace that a whole scenario of lies and half truths were fed to them as it
relates to promises the government made in its manifesto and election campaigns e.g. the nurses
would receive their reclassification, the public would have access to high quality free health care.
It must be noted that they kept the promise of free health however, the quality of care has
deteriorated to a new low that the public is clamoring for the return of user fees which it is
believed would help to alleviate the current dilemma. This is seen as a direct result of the
implementation of the IMF policy to reduce public spending by merging entities and reducing
the size of the work force.

With the current free health policy it was expected that there would be an increase in the
workforce. However in a statement by Prime Minister Bruce Golding he spoke about the Public
Sector Transformation Unit working vigorously to reduce the size and cost of government and
that retroactive payments due to teachers and the reclassification of nurses and other health
sector workers cannot be paid at one time, but will have to be spread over the next few years.
This reduction in manpower (achieved through unfilled vacancies and non renewal of contracts)
due to the government’s cost management strategy has affected most aspect of the institutions of
government.

The administrative apparatus, which a consisting of the civil service bureaucracy and other
bodies essential to the proper functioning of state has also suffered from the cutbacks resulting
in poor working conditions for the employees and substandard or limited service to the citizens
e.g. the health sector. Both the judicial and the coercive apparatus have not escaped the austerity
measures, the salaries of both judges and security forces has been a thorny issue resulting, in,
some members of the security forces suing the government for breach of contract as a result of
the wage freeze and the justices demonstrating for a number of reasons including poor working
conditions and the back log of cases. Tyrone Reid in an article titled’ DPP under Fire’ dated
March 27, 2011, says that Director of Public Prosecution, Paula Llewellyn is “Under fire for
what critics label as the snail's pace at which her office delivers case rulings, the Director of
Public Prosecutions (DPP) has hit back, stating that the current staff complement is woefully
inadequate. She has also warned that jungle justice could prevail if her office is not properly
staffed to ensure that justice is properly delivered through the established system.

6
With all the restrictions placed on the government they are unable to effective deliver basic
services to the electors. Resulting in catch twenty two situation that is make the majority of the
citizens angry by using the limited resources to reward special interest groups and party loyalists
(like the thousands of contracts given to Mr Coke a supporter of the current government and tax
waivers given Executive Motors after a freeze on tax waivers) or use the limited resources as
efficiently and equitably as possible to the benefit of all. The preferred route of delivering
material benefits to party loyalist is through construction contracts however, the IMF programme
has slowed the building of and continuation of these projects resulting in many disgruntled
supporters.

The IMF with its stipulations is seen by some as a secondary government from outside with a
greater power that the elected government and thus the government are no longer in a position to
provide for its citizens or offer good governance. Therefore it could be concluded that the
government’s legitimacy is threatened.