Bold reality check: governance and rebuilding after disaster demand more than catchy slogans. Gordon Robinson's observations push beyond surface-level promises, urging a deeper, smarter approach to Jamaica’s long-term resilience.
Last week, I criticized the reaction to the JPS “loan,” and the response felt like a retreat into safety-pinned narratives. The critique sparked a familiar backlash: if you’re reasonably secure in Kingston, your voice supposedly doesn’t carry the weight of those whose homes and lives were wrecked by the hurricane. The underlying implication is that only people directly affected can comment on how taxpayers’ money should be spent to rebuild. But if we apply that logic consistently, should post-hurricane budgeting analysis be limited only to those far from the storm’s path?
During a Christmas lighting ceremony in Half Way Tree, Attorney-at-Law Vaughn Bignall urged action: make lands available to the landless, empower the government to gift land, and build robust concrete homes that withstand storms. He argued poverty correlates with death in such disasters—poor people in river valleys and other vulnerable areas suffered the most. His honesty is admirable, yet it draws immediate pushback: you weren’t affected, you’re in Kingston, so you shouldn’t speak. The very people who were hardest hit—those in makeshift dwellings—are supposed to critique complex budget decisions and multinational loan terms?
Official figures put 48 storm-related deaths (mostly among the poor) and 18 missing. The toll may be higher when those buried or washed away are not counted. In nearby regions, climate disasters fueled by warming oceans have caused catastrophic floodings and landslides. In Asia, typhoons and a cyclone produced over 1,700 fatalities, with Sri Lanka declaring it the country’s most challenging natural disaster and about 10% of the population affected. Indonesia acknowledged deforestation from mining and illegal logging worsened damage, prompting the government to revoke licenses and halt upstream activities in disaster zones.
Jamaica’s own deforestation—driven by bauxite mining, illegal logging and charcoal production, plus tourism expansion—contributes to biodiversity loss, floods, and water issues. Melissa’s aftermath exposes harsh realities: building-code enforcement, risky mining licenses, mass tourism development, educational gaps, landlessness, and governance shortcomings all played roles in the devastation. The phrase “build back better” sounds appealing, but it needs real teeth. If a 15-year push to reduce debt to 60% of GDP still leaves us borrowing 40% of GDP to respond to a single hurricane, it’s a signal that true reform is overdue.
Building back smarter requires more than slogans. It demands an all-out government effort to protect the environment, implement social policies so homeless people can rebuild safe homes, and launch serious land-for-the-landless programs to stop dangerous living on riverbanks and flood-prone areas. Institutions—both church and state, and landowners shaped by colonial legacies—bear responsibility and must make amends.
And there are structural concerns to address. The NSWMA/NWC debate illustrates a misalignment: while the PM praises NWC’s profitability, Jamaica’s water supply remains sporadic, the national water-harvesting system is outdated, and sewage systems are inadequate despite monthly sewer charges fueling NWC’s profits. Inadequacies in water and sanitation infrastructure helped magnify disaster impacts.
Most fundamentally, if the goal is genuine build back better, governance must be honest about its flaws. It should be obvious that MPs ought to reside in their constituencies—promoting accountability over rhetorical battles about Privy Council versus CCJ. Abolishing the Privy Council could become a distraction from more urgent constitutional hurdles to recovery and development.
Melissa also highlights a governance bottleneck: too many ministries. If the objective is to place high-value ministers as decision-makers, confusion follows. A common suggestion is a constitutional cap of twelve named ministries, with clearly aligned portfolio responsibilities.
Consider Health and Wellness as a model: it should encompass environment, water, climate change, veterinary services, and waste management. Each element impacts health and well-being. Yet Jamaica currently divides these concerns across multiple ministries and offices, creating needless fragmentation. For instance, veterinary services sit under Agriculture, even though animal health influences human health directly. The result is unnecessary redundancy and disjointed policy.
The Local Government Ministry earns another critique: the name itself implies an oxymoron if it functions as a target for central control rather than a genuinely local, community-led body. After Melissa, questions about its effectiveness intensified. Desmond McKenzie recently announced an emergency overhaul to protect vulnerable infirmaries, yet the urgency felt reactive rather than proactive.
The path forward is clear but bold: reduce bureaucratic fragmentation, consolidate health-related portfolios, and empower communities through better land policies, smarter infrastructure planning, and accountable governance. Regional infirmaries should fall under Health or Social Security, not a standalone Local Government ministry that’s detached from the realities on the ground.
The call to action is simple. Build back smarter means more than rebuilding; it means rebuilding with durable, equitable systems. It means ensuring land for the landless, enforcing safer building codes, and designing urban and rural spaces that resist climate shocks. It means leadership that communities can trust—where MPs are truly representatives, not party functionaries—so public resources serve the people most in need.
So where do you stand? Do you think abolishing the Privy Council would genuinely accelerate recovery, or would it shift the center of gravity without solving core governance issues? Should Jamaica rethink how ministries are organized to align with health, environment, and social welfare, or is reform more about leadership and accountability than structural tweaks? Your thoughts matter—share them in the comments and join the conversation about how Jamaica can rebuild smarter, fairer, and more resilient for all."
