By Rahym R. Augustin-Joseph
Following the successful passage of one of the most pro-poor, redistributive and socially responsive Budgets – so much so that the Opposition has dismissed it as a “manifesto parading as a Budget” – some commentary has emerged that seems to snub the social conscience underpinning these measures.
I see this as a kind of disdain for the poor, disguised as narrow economic empiricism – questions like “Can we afford this?” and “Is it sustainable?” – without even interrogating these concerns or acknowledging their direct correlation to revenue streams and economic development. Or, better yet, without considering whether a government should use its tax revenues as Matthew 25:40 envisions: to uplift the least among us.
But again, I suspect this reflects a creeping disdain for the poor, particularly from Marx’s petite bourgeoisie – those who own some means of production but aspire to bourgeois status by aligning with capitalist interests, unaware that their economic vulnerability and false class consciousness make their position unstable. One day, they too may be absorbed into the proletariat, as capitalism inevitably concentrates wealth in fewer hands.
What surprises me, however, is how easily the lumpenproletariat are co-opted, likely because they lack productive labour or class consciousness, making them susceptible to manipulation by the bourgeoisie against working-class interests.
This disdain often frames poverty alleviation as fostering “dependency on the government” as if we aren’t all dependent on the State in various ways, and as if that isn’t precisely the government’s role. Critics argue that such policies create mendicants rather than the driven, creative individuals capitalism demands. But the fundamental question must be: What is the role of government?
We’re told we should “teach people to fish, not give them fish.” Yet how can a hungry person learn to fish? Have you ever seen a dead man fishing?
This disdain baffles me, as it ignores the stark realities of Saint Lucian poverty – the “Lucia vs Helen” dichotomy TC Brown sings about. Our most recent (though dated) poverty assessment found that 18.7 per cent of households and 25 per cent of the population live in poverty, higher than Caribbean peers. About 5 per cent of households were indigent, 20 per cent of female-headed households were poor, and 29 per cent of the rural population struggled with poverty. Poor households were also less likely to have educational qualifications, perpetuating cycles of differential achievement.
But poverty, as Amartya Sen reminds us, is more than statistics. It’s the denial of economic opportunities, political liberties, social agency, healthcare, education and the cultivation of initiative. Oscar Lewis adds that poverty is cultural, marked by fatalism, helplessness, short-term thinking due to instability, weak family structures, marginalisation and a mindset of autonomy and survival.
Given this, interventions like State-paid CXC fees, where Saint Lucia lags behind the region, are not “mendicancy”. This $500 000 annual investment allows parents and students to secure minimum qualifications for entry-level jobs without financial distress. It also means that they can divert resources to other endeavours aimed at improving the quality of their lives. Isn’t promoting STEM and foreign languages an investment in global citizens and innovators?
Why is it “dependency” when the State invests in youth potential, but “economic development” when we grant businesses years of tax breaks? Do we applaud sub-minimum wage employment, swallowing trickle-down dogma, instead of placing people at the centre of development?
What of pensioners who built this nation yet lacked liveable incomes? Or the $250 000 for feminine hygiene products to combat period poverty? Or support for student nurses to stem their exodus abroad? Or daily-paid public workers now gaining permanent jobs, enabling them to seek loans and stability?
Poverty escape requires resources and opportunities: removing taxes on essentials for low-income households or granting land titles to crown land residents, unlocking mortgages and education in the process. Or by paying temporary teachers in August so they can also invest in their children’s future, purchase items for the stimulation of economic activity and improve the quality of their lives.
The deeper issue isn’t just disdain masked as fiscal prudence, but the persistent myth that the poor are lazy and hopeless. Critics focus on a small subset of the lumpenproletariat, ignoring generations of hardworking poor in insecure underpaid jobs.
Many forget poverty’s generational nature. A scholarship helps one child, but the family’s uplift may come only when that child secures a better job years later. Real progress demands sustained investment, not instant fixes.
The debate should focus on implementation – acknowledging government slowness, not disdain for the poor manifested in narrow economics.
As Matthew 25:40 reminds us, our duty is to ask: How do we improve the lot of those with the least among us?
Rahym R. Augustin-Joseph is a 24-year-old Saint Lucian pursuing his Bachelor of Laws at UWI Cave Hill, after earning first-class honours in political science and law. The current Commonwealth Caribbean Rhodes Scholar and a former UWI valedictorian, he is dedicated to using law and politics to transform Saint Lucia and the wider Caribbean.
