AS IT celebrates its Independence, Jamaica is on the verge of an agreement with what some see as the independence-depleting International Monetary Fund (IMF) - just as we have recently celebrated our Emancipation from British slavery while wallowing in our slavery to American consumerism. No one can fault our sense of irony.

There are mixed reviews of Jamaica at 47. Some point to our feats in sports and culture; the fact that we are an athletic superpower, with the fastest man and woman in the world. Punching way above our weight internationally is a source of inestimable joy. No other country of similar size - and not even many with multiple millions of people - has our musical prowess or has produced genres of music which have had such a global appeal.

Which country outside of America and Britain has produced a musical superstar as well known globally as Bob Marley? Despite our decline in manufacturing, we have produced world-class brands and have boasted industries which are internationally competitive, and companies which have outranked others in their transitional group globally. Our hoteliers win coveted global awards, our scientists do pioneering research hailed in the best peer-reviewed journals and we have produced some of the finest academics who have taken their place in the best universities in North America and Europe.

Memorable leadership

In international diplomacy, the advocacy and leadership of a Michael Manley have not been equalled by many leaders in the developing world, and his vision and passion for global justice have rarely been surpassed. A P.J. Patterson in international negotiations was formidable and memorable. His leadership of the African, Caribbean and Pacific, grouping leading to the Lome Agreement with the then European Economic Community is still spoken of reverentially.

In terms of institution-building, an Edward Seaga must be one of the outstanding achievers among Third-World leaders; indeed, one of the most outstanding, period. That all these institutions have not had the cumulative impact does not detract from his stellar performance in this area. Bustamante's exceptional labour leadership and Norman Manley's work and vision for self-government and Jamaican independence should make all Jamaicans, irrespective of partisan political affiliation, proud.

We have produced leaders who, despite their weaknesses, have been committed to liberal democracy. And when there were serious questions about our electoral system, the parties came together and worked long and hard to produce an electoral system which is light years ahead of what we had.

Many ordinary Jamaicans have had opportunities they could never have under colonialism. They have a voice in Jamaica which they could never have under colonialism. Even our journalists and commentators who decry Jamaica's achievements under Independence have a latitude to criticise and to lambaste that might not have been tolerated if directed at the Crown. A lot has indeed been achieved.

But no matter how we pretty up things; no matter how we don the national colours and rev up our patriotic fervour, there is no denying that Jamaica at 47 is not at a good place. We are the crime capital (or near to it) of the world. We are one of the worst-performing economies in the world, with one of the longest periods of negative economic growth rates in the world. I heard Ralston Hyman saying the other morning that Jamaica between 1977 and the mid-90s when we broke from the IMF had the longest continuous borrowing relationship of any country in the world.

We have one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios in the world. We have whole communities, called garrisons, where dons and 'shottas' hold people in bondage; where young girls are summoned for sex and where poor people's subsistence wages are taxed by criminals who control turf. We have business people and bus and taxi owners who are hostages to criminal protection rings.

We have a fractious, divisive and tribalised politics which makes it difficult for the country to solve some of its most daunting problems.

We are a low-trust society. All the economic studies have shown that low-trust, conflict-ridden societies don't do well economically. And that when they do experience economic crises, they recover much slower than those societies which have high trust and are cooperative.

Issue of trust

The issue of trust goes also to the issue of respect. One of the biggest reasons for the alienation between the classes in Jamaica and the fact that inner-city people feel so much resentment to uptown is that they sense that uptown people don't respect them; that they don't regard them. In short, they don't trust uptown people. They believe uptown, middle-class people are acting in their own selfish and narrow interests.

Our high levels of inequality have bred class antagonisms, as much as we don't like to talk about these issues. They make us uncomfortable. But they are no less true.

Jamaica at 47 lacks national cohesion, a national vision, a set of organising principles which hold the nation together. In the 1950s, the thrust was towards self-government. There was a strong nationalist surge. That generation was determined to see the backs of the British and they were confident that they could manage their own affairs. Forty-seven years ago at our Independence, we all thought we were building a new Jamaica. We had high hopes for Independence. Or industrialisation programme had already started and the '60s was a golden era for the global economy.

The Jamaican economy did well in terms of macroeconomic growth. Our confidence was building. Institutions were being created. There was hope and optimism. But by the in 1970s, we saw that while we were busy building the economy, we had neglected the social dimension or had an accumulated social deficit. In 1974, Manley declared socialism and we moved from nationalism to socialism as our ideology. (At least many did.) Socialism was seen as the path that world give us both economic growth and social equity.

You know what happened. We made great strides in terms of social development and social legislation. The people's energies were definitely mobilised. There was a strong communitarian spirit; a strong spirit of voluntarism and self-reliance. But in the end, we found that we could not distribute what we did not produce; that social equity had to be based on a strong foundation of economic growth.

The struggle

By the end of the 1970s, people were tired of "the struggle". They wanted money to "jingle in their pickets". Meanwhile, globally, it was the start of the Reagan-Thatcher era of conservatism and reactionary politics. The world itself had been changing, with disillusionment growing for socialism and mounting fears about the spread of communism.

Since the 1980s, we have seen the growth of 'meism', hedonism and narcissism. People have retreated into themselves. Every man watching his own back. Today, there is no grand national vision, no overarching national purpose or goal, no meta-narrative. The political project has been exhausted. Votes today can be more easily bought than ever before, as everything is reduced to a monetary value.

Even People's National Party (PNP) organisers who used to be able to mobilise workers on the basis of ideology or common party vision are now complaining bitterly that party workers are looking for a "let off" and asking what the party can do for them, not what they can do for the party. The PNP has to be bawling that the Jamaica Labour Party, with superior access to funds, are buying out elections. Have they stopped to ask what this is saying about our people? Have our people so lost a sense of the meaning of politics that they can be sold to the highest bidder?

Is this the Jamaica we can be proud of at 47? Is there a sense in Jamaica that people are really committed to this piece of rock; that they really put Jamaica ahead of their own personal interests?

Is there a sense that middle-class people are willing to sacrifice for their country; that they would sacrifice lucrative professional opportunities abroad just to stay here and build their country? Are people really seeking to serve in Jamaica or just to feather their own nests? Who really is committed to Jamaica? The dual-citizenship issues raise larger points than are being discussed.

Jamaica at 47 has troubling questions to ask. Perhaps what is most troubling is that the really important questions are not even being asked, and that what preoccupies us are ultimately peripheral things.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com