In a country like Jordan, the economic decision maker is typically faced with a political dilemma. What has to be done to strengthen the economy and remove distortions may not be politically acceptable to the public. This is where the expression "difficult decision" stemmed from. It also means that a decision that is right and imperative to be taken might face rejection and opposition at the political street level - at times, rejection can be violent or bordering on blackmail, to coerce decision makers and prevent the right action from taking place.
In other words, the Jordanian decision makers normally find themselves caught in a dilemma. They have either to make the right decision at the right time in the best interest of the national economy in the short or long run, or succumb to the pressure groups who fight to protect their own self interests and wouldn't care less for the negative results and consequences on the country as a whole.
There is near consensus that priority should be given to the continued economic growth during the next five years, at a rate not below 6 per cent, if not to eliminate or reduce unemployment, at least to prevent it from rising beyond the current 14 per cent rate. However, in order for the economic growth to continue at this high level, the economy must be free from the numerous distortions that hinder healthy growth and hold back modernisation and reform efforts.
On the other hand, the large deficit in the current account of the balance of payments must be reduced to an acceptable level, because it is too risky to depend too long on the flow of foreign capital for direct or indirect investments to finance such deficit. This method is neither safe nor sustainable. However, to correct this serious situation, some difficult decisions must be made, that could be deferred indefinitely to avoid a public outcry even at the risk of more deterioration.
The deficit in the central government budget, for instance, must also be reduced steadily in order for the country to be really independent and able to do without having to borrow or seek foreign grants, which infringe on the financial and economic independence, and put Jordanian policies at the mercy of lenders and donors. However, in order to reduce deficit, the budget must be freed from the costly subsidies that consume a major part of the budget.
Removal of subsidies, an economic imperative, is seen, politically, as an untouchable red line, according to some opposition leaders.
Some people blame the media for failure to educate the people and prepare them to accept the difficult decisions ahead. Well, journalists, like officials, care a lot about their popularity. They are more comfortable opposing government policies and decisions as a way to appear free and courageous. If anything, part of the media is working overtime as a backward reactionary power, making taking the right decisions more difficult.
At one time it took courage to criticise the government.
The National Agenda, finalised last year, gave high priority to political, economic and social reforms. It was hoped that governments will depend on the agenda's legitimacy to pass the necessary decisions, claiming that they are only implementing what was agreed upon in the agenda, in the same way governments were able to make difficult decisions to satisfy the conditions of the IMF economic adjustment programme. For some unfortunate reasons, the agenda was aborted at birth, before printing the document was completed.
It is not too late to breathe new life into it.
Fahed Fanek
© Jordan Times 2007
