- NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - Hier 04:04

Entitlement in context

TREVOR SUDAMA I NOTED with interest the recent statement by former prime minister Dr Keith Rowley, at a leadership forum in Tobago, that a great deal of anger pervading the society has its roots in a sense of entitlement and the unfulfilled demands associated with it. The implication is that citizens feel entitled to a certain standard of living regardless of the state of the economy and to income and other benefits merely by the occupation of position regardless of effort, performance and merit. Then there are those who, for one reason or another, are unable to participate, or meaningfully so, in the socio-economic system but nevertheless are of the view that, as citizens, they should share in what is considered the national patrimony. The challenge for governance is to satisfactorily accommodate these demands. At the root of this task is the issue of wealth creation, the responsibility of the major actors in this project, the mechanisms and processes for the distribution of its benefits, and the role of the state. National wealth is taken to mean the value of all goods and services produced in a country, whether for internal consumption or export. While there will be contention and disagreement with respect to the apportionment in the distribution process, it is indisputable that wealth must first be created (produced) before it can be distributed (consumed). Attention therefore is directed, among other things, to the quantum of capital mobilised, the level of technology embraced, the adequacy of entrepreneurship and management, and the productivity of labour. In other words, the appropriate conditions must exist for wealth creation as well as a realistic and fair regime for distribution to ensure a reasonable quality of life for all. Wealth creation is therefore dependent on the productivity of all the factors of production, especially of labour. One economic historian has postulated that a precondition for the creation of wealth is a society of the kind required to produce it. In this regard it is well to note that the state, except where it is itself engaged in economic activity, is not directly involved in wealth creation. Its contribution generally is through its role in providing the economic, social and legal infrastructure for the establishment of productive activity. It is the legal appropriation by the state of a portion of the wealth created by the country that enables it to carry out its functions, whether it be in the provision of the necessary infrastructure or its agenda for redistribution. It stands to reason that the quantum of wealth generated in a country determines the capacity of the state for redistributive endeavours. Political leaders themselves will have contributed to the emphasis on distribution and to the impulse of entitlement. Their utterances do have consequences including an impact on the psyche of their followers. For example, a crusading slogan in the demand for freedom from colonial rule was “Seek ye first the political kingdom and all else shall be added on to ye.” The statement implies that all demands and aspirations will be fulfilled once state power is transferred into local hands. It may have exaggerated and amplified the presumed benefits of independence. There was little emphasis on the responsibilities and obligations of citizens in all spheres to make the sacrifice and effort to meet the challenges and opportunities for wealth creation which will form the basis for a higher standard of living and a better quality of life. In our own case in TT, pronouncements made by our first prime minister Dr Eric Williams may have unwittingly influenced a laissez-faire attitude to work and productive activity. For example, “Massa day done” may have carried the inference that there was now freedom from any imposed discipline to work which may have inculcated an indifference to persevering effort. The other statement in the wake of the first windfall from skyrocketing oil prices that “money is no problem” may have led many to presume that the government presided over a limitless pool of funds and all that was necessary was to make a request. While the government did promote the watchwords Discipline, Production and Tolerance, the appropriate leadership, policies and institutions of facilitation and enforcement were not forthcoming. Thus, the words became empty slogans as the historical legacy today is characterised by indiscipline and a disposition to minimal or no effort at productive activity. As for "Tolerance," we became far too tolerant of negative influences such as corruption, self-interest above all, freeness, indolence and a culture of unrestrained consumption and festivity. Then the unrealistic and heady promises made on political platforms in order to gain electoral support will have engendered high expectations of benefits to be provided by the state, which inevitably consolidates into a conviction of entitlement. If entitlement without productive effort, performance and perseverance becomes a cultural attribute, it will not augur well for the future of the country. M The post Entitlement in context appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.