Announcing her departure from the 2012 Republican presidential campaign, former candidate Michele Bachmann repeatedly criticized what she called President Barack Obama's "socialist" policies. The socialism criticism has been a common theme among Republican candidates seeking their party's nomination for president.

Programs specifically targeted to help the less fortunate are often branded with socialist or populist labels. Unfortunately, those applying these labels use them to demonize efforts towards social consciousness.

Regrettably, there has been much recent public debate against government spending on programs reaching out to help those who are less privileged. The oddest development from the debate, however, is the number of less-privileged citizens criticizing social programs meant to improve their standard of living.

An ideal democratic society is not built for a minority to thrive while the majority struggle daily for mere survival. Neither can a society, any society, exist without a government. The alternative would be chaos. And since everyone within a society cannot be directly involved in its governance, the society (in democracies like America and the Caribbean) elects individuals to represent the will of the people.

The role of a responsible government in a democratic society is to secure the general wellbeing of everyone – rich and poor alike – a process which must involve some regulations including working with the business sector, as it affects the social and economic development of the society. Since the private sector's objective is to escalate its profit margin consistently, at times it cannot be relied on to be the government's strong partner in maintaining society's standard of living.

Therefore, in today's adverse economic climate in which the poor struggles to cope, the government has a role to play in creating conditions to maintain the wellbeing of its citizens.

This is exactly what the Obama administration has been trying to achieve – assisting citizens affected by the harsh economy to cope. These policies are not an attempt to attack capitalism or democracy, and are by no means socialism.

The readiness to brand leaders and governments with a social conscience as socialist, is of course, not particular to the U.S., nor the Obama administration, but to most governments seeking to uplift the county's general standard of living. It would not be surprising that as soon as the new administration in Jamaica implements social programs like the Jamaica Emergency Employment Program (JEEP) to provide jobs for the unemployed, suppressed whispers of socialism will grow louder.

Sure, there can be a policy debate, but to insist that there should be no regulations and that government should step aside defies logic.

Interestingly, those ready to label governments as socialists appear ignorant of the economic advantages inherent by enhancing the prosperity level of the less fortunate. Increasing the purchasing power of the poor also increases consumer spending and by extension, increases revenue earned by the public and private sectors, resulting in national economic growth. So-called socialist policies are in fact corollaries to capitalistic objectives. The wasted rhetoric aside, there is nothing adverse in introducing social programs that improve the living standards of any society. The end result, with astute public management, can lead to national economic growth.