Commentary
guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com

Posted January 29th. 2008 - by Wendy C. Grenade

There is a debate as to whether recent electoral outcomes in St. Lucia, Jamaica, The Commonwealth of the Bahamas and most recently Barbados represent a wave of change within the CARICOM region. Those who argue to the contrary point to electoral victories in Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago. However both countries are unique given the question of race. It must be noted that although the People's National Movement (PNM) recently won the majority of seats in Trinidad and Tobago, it lost the popular vote. The split votes between the United National Congress and the Congress of the People - both Indo-Trinidadian based political parties -- may well have influenced the outcome. In the case of Guyana, the impact of the new third party, the Alliance for Change (AFC), cannot be ignored. Aided by the system of Proportional Representation (PR), the AFC was able to mount a reasonably good showing, capturing five seats in the National Assembly.

While each country has its own peculiarities, there are some glaring similarities in the issues which generate discontent among the masses in the CARICOM region. Among them are the following:

* High cost of living

* Increased incidences of crime and violence

* The high cost of land and home-construction together with the perception that the lands are intended for sale to foreigners with deep pockets

* The influx of economic migrants into domestic spaces and the perceived economic and social threats they pose to nationals in terms of jobs, better wages and accustomed social benefits

* High public debt and the implications for future generations

* Perceived corruption by public officials

* Perceived lack of transparency and lack of fairness in the issuance of government contracts

* Arrogance by political elites and a perception that they own the state

* A general disconnect between the government and ordinary citizens

In the case of Barbados, one other issue related to whether an incumbent party should be granted four consecutive terms in government. That issue was tackled squarely by the then opposition Democratic Labour Party (DLP) by challenging the idea that the Owen Arthur administration delivered sound economic and political management. Much was made of the large public debt which currently stands at 88% of GDP (on this statistic, see Daily Nation, Thursday 24 January 2008, p. 18). Revelations and exposure based on documentary evidence was presented during the DLP campaign enough to sustain negative perceptions of the governance of the Arthur Administration. Altogether these strategies ensured that their campaign slogan `Time For Change' enjoyed greater resonance with an electorate already wary of granting any government four terms in office. Arthur's regional leadership and Barbados' sustained international standing mattered little in the final outcome.

But this alone does not explain the real dilemma confronting incumbent governments in the region. State managers in the Caribbean have opted to follow a neo-liberal model of development, the results of which often fail to make a difference in the lives of ordinary citizens. The economic policies focus on augmenting the market and building infrastructural capacity - port expansions, the construction of stadia, fly-overs, condominiums and the like - than explicitly placing people at the heart of the development process. While infrastructural development is necessary, to what extent does it advance the well-being of ordinary citizens? For example, would citizens not prefer accessible, affordable and efficient health services, affordable access to quality education, job security, societal safety, guaranteed pension benefits and environmental protection? Would citizens not want to be assured that their children can purchase lands and would not be shackled with large public debt? In addition, there is a general anxiety among the middle classes with quality of life issues and the possibility of being part of a new working poor.

These are some of the issues which face the Caribbean electorate and in turn challenge incumbents. How can these issues be addressed? There is need for a new approach to development which places people at the core. Policy makers should find more creative ways to simultaneously navigate global forces, balance regional and national interests and keep in touch with the concrete needs of the people. Citizens should also be more involved in their governance. A new kind of Caribbean requires a new kind of citizen who can organize and mobilize to meaningfully influence the political process beyond the ballot.

(Wendy Grenade, Ph.D. is a Lecturer in Political Science at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados.)

Withdrawal of ads from Stabroek News does no credit to the Govt

Posted November 1st. 2007

ALLISSA TROTZ
DENNIS WIGGINS
ANDAIYE
EUSI KWAYANA
DAVID HINDS
MOSES BHAGWAN
NIGEL WESTMAAS
LINCOLN VAN SLUYTMAN
JAI PARSARAM
KATHY WILLS
SARA ABRAHAM
CLARENCE F. ELLIS

THE issue of the withdrawal of ads from Stabroek News was brought back to public notice by the demonstration organised by the newspaper outside the recent Commonwealth Finance Ministers Conference, when the police saw it fit to deny the protestors the right to bear placards, which by any standard are a form of speech. As senior counsel once argued in a newsprint case in the PPP's favour the right to freedom of speech does not prescribe the quantity of speech to be allowed. It may be added that the right does not choose for the citizen the form of speech she or he is entitled to. The placard denial, even if partial, had an aim, and it reminds us of some of the measures the PPP and others opposed before 1992.

Many citizens and other observers do not accept the government's defence of its denial of a significant number of government ads to Stabroek News. Our reply to that worn-out argument that no one protested when Kaieteur News for many years did not receive government ads is that if Kaieteur News had publicly raised the issue it would surely have won wide solidarity, including ours.

Circulation statistics are clearly in dispute, but equally clearly, circulation statistics are not the issue, as many have pointed out before us. The government's argument appears to be that taxpayers' money should automatically go to the state newspaper, whatever its circulation, and to the PPP party newspaper, whatever its circulation. So the only issue was whether money should go to the Stabroek News or the Kaieteur News.

Accepting that questionable argument for a moment, whether or not Stabroek News circulation is higher or lower than Kaieteur News no sane person can deny that the Stabroek News is a leading daily newspaper of Guyana, enjoying a popular circulation base in various parts of the country. To deny it the advertisements of twenty-nine government agencies is an act of discrimination against those who rely on that paper for information and can be seen as a form of coercion to cause them to change their newspaper preference if they wish or need to see the ads.

That the Kaieteur News carries articles critical of the government and still receives government ads is a welcome attitude on the government. Its virtue fades, however, when the same attitude is not applied in the case of the Stabroek News.

We call on the government to reverse its decision to withdraw the ads from Stabroek News.

It is a decision which does it no credit.

Whatever the government does now
about SN ads it has been a defining issue

Posted February 16th. 2007 - By Eusi Kwayana, David Hinds and Andaiye

Most people expect that now that the Mirror and Mrs Jagan have spoken, the government will correct its excess regarding newspaper advertising, revise its new-found advertising cost benefit theory and come to order. Whatever the government does now, it has been a defining issue.

It is an issue that not only defines how government decisions are taken, and where the most persuasive location is, but also the relationship between party and state.

It will instruct the population about the application of democratic centralism in the Guyana context where the non-governmental press remains a kind of power and where other divisions may act to deprive the paramount party of its wish for absolute authority.

It is hoped that those officials who have so far justified the ban will now see that the comments of all who protested the ban, now joined effectively by a member of their own 'A' team, have been effectively supporting one of the few rights not yet totally eroded.

Time will tell. For those too young or too busy to remember, in 1973 the then head of Guyana's government, PM Mr LFS Burnham, said in Barbados when pressed about the freedom of the press, "In Guyana we don't tell people what to print. We tell them what not to print."

We leave aside other possible effects of the advertisement measure hoping that egos will give way to commonsense and justice.

Guyana: Finding and Fixing Contradictions
in Early Post-Elections Period

Posted September 25th.2006 - By Festus L. Brotherson, Jr., Ph. D.

The zeal Guyana's President Bharrat Jagdeo exhibits for his job is genuine. This is uplifting news for the state and society as the president, fresh from victory in the August 28, 2006 general elections, faces complex challenges in development pursuits. There he was two weeks ago, in Singapore, chairing the 2006 Annual Meetings of the Boards of Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group, the leading economic globalization forums wherein he continues to steer Guyana's way some life enhancing programs/actions through credits, debt reduction, debt forgiveness, etc. Mr. Jagdeo's leadership agenda is awe-inspiring, the tasks and objectives upon it foreboding for anyone else with less stamina for effective crisis management.

But major missteps are occurring and the president is being unfairly blamed for all of them. To be sure, some culpability is clear but most of the emerging problems are the result of an already set, unyielding state and societal environment over which Mr. Jagdeo and his PPP/C have little control. Moreover, the rush to harsh judgment in opposition quarters (e.g., re the Constitution, "the government is illegal, its actions are all illegal") is unhelpful to finding solutions urgently. Like the president, leaders here appear guilty of ignoring their own voluntary pledges of cooperation in the post-election period. But they too are victims of the same newly developing reality, the intricacies of which they do not seem to grasp fully.

In his Cabinet-making to support policy objectives, Mr. Jagdeo combined an odd assemblage of unproductive loyalists with inexperienced newcomers - an approach to team building and sustenance not far removed from that of his late opposition predecessor. Thus did the president showcase uninspired carpentry, and thus will his cabinet members have to learn quickly on the job if they are to deliver on his promises and on popular expectations involving at least those three contentious issue areas we explored in past weeks, viz.: safe environment; Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC); and wider, more reconciliatory outreaches.

Even before that, a main hurdle that demands clearance for more political wiggle room in an already tight workspace is the leadership environment itself, which upon careful analysis is dominated, energized by the unforgiving performance imperatives of globalization and new legally binding Constitutional guidelines. The pressures here were already present in the run up to the elections. In general, using crime control as one example, they concern producing wide, sustainable, beneficial results immediately for the majority of citizens. Everywhere, these pressures are more intense by dint of happenstance, and the pulse of demands beats unpredictably because the groundswell of globalized-informed competitive workings continue to turn international political economy upside down, shrink time and space for human reflection and better contemplated responses, tending the entire system towards instability. Bluntly put, traditional modus operandi simply no longer work.

Next, more ominously, contradictions between the stated intentions of different and similar executives have quickened. Put another way, not only does the basic content of politics remain contradictory in the environment, but also the impact of globalization deepens and widens those contradictions, and the variables that spawn results move unabatedly, inexorably in ways beyond leadership capacities to tame and control them. They compromise delivery on goals. To repeat for emphasis, the ordinary immanent personal characteristics of leaders and the various ideologies they/we use as justification for actions no longer produce desired results.

Most importantly, this stalemate has several consequences. It molds and remolds the processes of political endeavors. It helps shape and direct the flow of political activities. It contributes to more rushed judgments of merit and demerit about issues to be tackled and decisions to be made and implemented.

From research, it is this piled-on panoply of specious barren conceptual additives that helps generate contradictions, explain narrow give and take of ongoing behavior, and precipitate crisis in the all-important third issue area -- officialdom demonstrating the new code of outreach conduct in the hunt for good, stable governance. If not, how else can we explain the rise of one particularly strange contradiction that has irked many influential people? That contradiction is President Jagdeo's stubborn retention of Mr. Bernard Kerik to advise on reforms of the Guyana Police Force despite loud protests this has caused in civil society and among opposition political parties? Mr. Kerik is the former New York Police Commissioner who has many moral failings and faces uphill challenges in overcoming them. In the meantime, by presidential dictate, Guyana is stuck with an unfit advisor on moral reforms for its corrupt police force; an advisor who is himself the subject of aggressive investigation by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on questions that bear directly on morality!

Let us continue refocus on the President's immediate post-election call for more dialogue of cooperation with opposers in policy development areas. Guyana's ambassador to the USA, Mr. Bayney Karran, has been forceful and well received in promoting this new approach to governance. But many of Mr. Jagdeo's other key colleagues speak contrarily and with surprising bellicosity on the subject. Evidence, for example, perplexingly hostile comments by one extremely high profile executive who reacted with gleeful dismissiveness to the Constitutional crisis building around the convening of the National Assembly on September 28! That burgeoning crisis requires urgent cooperative outreach. Indeed, although this matter is THE major mushrooming one of political disconnect in national politics, even the President's own behavior on the subject have sometimes not signaled any desire for cooperation with foes. Matters have deteriorated to the point where ruling and opposition camps have resumed intense wailings and accusatory protestations, in and out of courts of law, that were common prior to the election of 2006.

Succinctly put, the crisis concerns the need for Parliament to reconvene while facing the impossibility of doing so. It is about the dilemma of state power being at once necessary while at the same time being impossible to exercise while the authority of state -- the great Leviathan -- is still being created and preened.

In sum, the matters of Kerik and the Guyana Constitution highlight the rise and spread of contradictions, and the need for them to be tackled by cooperative meetings among the political parties. Success here will demand all of President Jagdeo's leadership skills, more cooperation and less opportunist jawboning in the opposition and government camps.

Dr. Brotherson is a political scientist from Guyana who resides in Ohio, USA.

Send comments to: drbrotherson@aol.com

Guyana Elections Aftermath

Posted September 18th.2006 - By Festus L. Brotherson, Jr., Ph. D.

PART II of II

Recap of Part 1

In the currently calm post elections period in Guyana, several issues compete for prioritized attention. Three of them warrant immediate brainstorming:

* Providing a safe and fear-free environment for all citizens;

* A Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to rekindle sustainable national unity;

* A work ethic by officialdom where behavior stresses outreaches to opposition and supportive constituencies for effective policymaking.

Although the three issues are intertwined and given fillip by an unrelenting performance imperative that demands beneficial outcomes from political leadership, they might have to be tackled separately because of other constraints. Regardless, favorable results are not guaranteed because of Third World environmental constants and the nature of complexities (including racial concerns) in the challenges of goal pursuits. 'Providing freedom from fear' was amplified. We thus begin Part II with completing our focus on a TLC and a cooperative work ethic promoted by officialdom.

Start of Part II

Given already limited resources, manageability demands of projects, the need for effective socialization to deepen democratic values, e.g., racial tolerance, and achieving wider sustainable benefits from the search for elusive development, the three issues have significant capability to help heal the sick Guyana body politic and reverse its decline. Herein, again, lies the essentiality of a TRC.

Guyana cannot achieve national cohesion unless the failings, fears, excesses of the past, including some of the last fourteen years, are examined. It is during the last forty-two years (and not just twenty-eight) that well-intentioned but sometimes misguided and corrupt officials sought sweeping change and made major missteps. During these decades, the glue that binds leaders to followers and followers to an acceptable national ideology, which rallies rather than divides, has remained ineffective. It has failed to stick.

One reason is that Guyana still has too many sharply competing political ideologies despite turmoil experienced by traumas of fundamental change and reversals of them, such as from capitalism to socialism and back. This remains a huge barrier to understanding the scope of challenges, and prioritizing and overcoming them towards that most difficult of accomplishments -- diminished corruption levels while sustainable social change is introduced in a nationwide mindset wherein efficacy has been restored, and stability reigns unchallenged. Obviously, an honestly functioning TRC that vivisects problems and examines their roots towards solutions is powerfully complementary in paving the way helpfully.

Again, it is a buoyant TRC, in the context of orderliness expected in a safe environment (in part because of extended immunities to wrongdoers), and absent too much acrimony, that will enrich spirited national conversations intended to treat painful wounds on that wide spectrum of maladies in the political environment. The wounds extend beyond violence and the threat of it, e.g., apathy, diffidence, and are just as important for building and keeping trust among citizens. It is the latter's trust - which, as the key component of political legitimacy, is so vital for the third issue, which I earlier encapsulated as innovative, exemplary special governmental behavior.

Governmental functioning emphasizing consultation and cooperation in policy explorations, choices and execution: armed with clear-cut political legitimacy conferred by electoral victory, the administration should outline a protocol for brainstorming policy pursuits. Magnanimously, it would stress governance by use of constitutionally approved mechanisms for alliances among ruling and other political entities for passage of legislation in service of responsive, responsible democratic government.

The moment for such behavior is opportune but requires ending mushrooming arrogance in certain quarters. For example, there is the constant claim that the PPP/C gained a landslide victory! Fifty-four percent is not a landslide and the boast ridicules significant blocs of non-supporters. There are also off-the-cuff dismissals of the fact that voting in 2006 dramatized more racial cleavages in the PPP/C camp than those in the PNCR-1G and other parties.

Annoyance among opposition forces is growing in what seems to be government's misinterpretation of calmness. The Working People's Alliance (WPA), which did not contest the elections, reminded recently that absence of political unrest does not necessarily mean the presence of peace. Thomas Hobbes said so centuries ago in his weather analogy: "For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain; but in an inclination thereto of many days together; so the nature of war, consisteth not in actual fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary."

At this time, one dominant matter that provides such an opportunity for President Jagdeo's new government to demonstrate this new behavior, which he in fact has promised, is the growing constitutional crisis on the convening of Parliament. Stay tuned. END

Dr. Brotherson is a political scientist from Guyana who resides in Ohio, USA.

Send comments to: drbrotherson@aol.com

Guyana Elections Aftermath:
Priorities in Making and Advancing Policies

Posted September 8th.2006 - By Festus L. Brotherson, Jr., Ph. D.

PART I of II

In the immediate afterglow of the successful general elections in Guyana, several issues compete for immediate attention, policy making and execution. Ironies abound. For example, the issues are intertwined, but a compelling case can be made for each one being a separate priority. And while the urgency for action on all of them is intense, by dint of scarce resources attention might only be possible for each, one at a time, even though such an approach can exact prohibitive costs on the neglected ones and, possibly, on the entire Guyanese socio-economic system.

Additionally, given the mercurial nature of politics in the underdeveloped world, there is no certainty of successful results from endeavors even if these issues are pursued with exemplary conduct and purposive good intent, or given inspired impetus by that always hungry corruption beast ever present in human nature, and that is the hubris of any pursuit of good government.

In this labyrinthine environment, a performance imperative unrelentingly exerts pressure on leadership to provide beneficial results, upping people's expectations of significant amelioration of their ills in both immediate and long-term settings. So what are the "intertwined issues" which compete for prioritized attention? They include: providing for every citizen freedom from fear in a safe environment, which is the first and foremost responsibility of government; pursuing the goal of national unity through measures that, in the context of Guyana, must also involve a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC); and finally, for our purposes, state functioning that emphasizes consultation and cooperation in development of policies by means of constitutionally approved mechanisms for alliances between and among the ruling and other political entities for the passage of legislation.

To summarize, the intertwined issues for immediate focus are: providing a safe and fear free environment; a TRC that serves as a balm to massage and nourish democratic tenets in service of national unity; and governmental work ethic where behavior stresses cooperative outreaches on policy development and implementation. Some amplification is required

Safe, fear-free environment: the esoteric significance of this is its relation to a complementary individual and national psyche for system preservation and flourishing. It fosters, it nourishes political efficacy wherein the majority of citizens showcase a sense of belonging, an axiomatic rationale for patriotism, and a passionate willingness to defend the state and society by basic Aristotelian principles regarding collective and individual citizen responsibility, and by force of arms if required -- and even if as ruthlessly as outlined by Thomas Hobbes.

But the immediate pragmatic essentiality of such an environment remains its necessity for combating and controlling crime. The ability to fight crime in Guyana is woefully inadequate and criminal gangs - in particular those involved in the drug trade -- operate with impunity. The situation has deepened racial tensions and the country is in danger of becoming a collapsed state with all the attendant problems that such a calamity brings; especially the inability to govern itself. A safe environment is, too, a critically suitable context for the bursting forth and buttressing of entrepreneurial skills against a bulwarked backdrop of fairness and respect for authority relationships that provide the safety and freedom from fear. In the relaxed environment, emphasis becomes rooted in training, rules, habits and traditions that strengthen safety and the freedom that comes in its wake.

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC): surprisingly, the now once more victorious PPP/C government, just one week prior to its fourth consecutive electoral win, ruled out in brusque, cavalier manner the establishment of such a body. Its topmost executives scolded too dismissively that the time for setting up such was 1992 when democratic government was reestablished in Guyana with the return to power of Dr. Cheddi Jagan.

Indeed, in an exclusive pre-election victory interview back then, Dr. Jagan had told this writer of his intention not to set up any TRC, should he win the plebiscite. He strongly believed that ignoring the painful past of authoritarian excesses was the best way to move Guyana forward politically towards stability and national unity.

Such thinking has since proven to be a mistake given the persistency of poverty, the enduring fact and spread of accusations of racism, and only marginal useful progress of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) which addresses racial issues; but with not nearly enough penetrative power and binding findings.

Maintenance of this position would be myopic. It does not take into consideration the views of many opinion, political, religious and other leaders, as well as a wide cross-section of ordinary citizens who have been impressed with the work of TRCs in South Africa and, closer to home, Grenada. Many reasons have been advanced by this writer and others about the incalculable benefits of a TRC and it being a sine qua non for sustainable development achievements in Guyana. END (To Be Continued).

Dr. Brotherson is a political scientist from Guyana who resides in Ohio, USA.

Send comments to: drbrotherson@aol.com

OP ED: Guyanese Deserve More Than A Cup Or A Palm Tree

Posted August 11th.2006 - By Felicia Persaud

Come August 28th, nationals in Guyana will go to the polls to select a government that would take them through 2011. From the few polls that have so far been published, it seems that the ruling Peoples Progressive Party/Civic will be returned to office while the main opposition Peoples National Congress/Reform, now going under the newer name, One Guyana - Peoples National Congress/Reform, would get the second largest number of votes.

And so the political history of Guyana will remain largely unchanged as the battle between the PPP and the PNC continues still in 2006. This despite the horrific history of the PNC’s 28-year rule in Guyana – for which it has never apologized - and the disgraceful rule of the PPP since 1992, which has been marked by numerous allegations of corruption, a rise in crime, narco-trafficking, allegations of favoritism for contracts and the continuation of the bureaucratic red-tape in the civil service that was endemic during the PNC years.

There is no doubt that the economic stagnation of Guyana, despite its lavish natural resources, is largely the fault of both the PNC and the PPP. Politics and race continue to control critical sectors of Guyana and while the ruling class gets richer, the poverty of the working class becomes more endemic and the country as a whole is sinking deeper into the mire of depression while a few in the leadership class continue to achieve individual success. Just look at the ‘Prado’ scheme that has sprung up where previously poor nationals, prior to becoming ministers of government, have achieved obvious economic success, building huge houses and driving around in fancy cars.

Compared to every other Caricom country, there is no reason why Guyana should be in the mess it’s in. It has an abundance of natural resources, immense geographic size, a profusion of intellectuals all around the world and if truly marketed, its eco-tourism product has the potential to excel most Caribbean countries today.

Yet, even with all its richness, Guyanese are the laughing stock of the region with tiny little islands that could be blown to bits by a hurricane turning up their noses at Guyana and mistreating Guyanese migrants at their airports. And as more Guyanese flee to “greener” pastures leaving a brain drain in the country that’s hard to miss at all levels including at the top.

But despite the blatant fact that the lack of political leadership is the culprit in this developmental stagnation, the PPP and the PNC remain main contenders in the political ring of Guyana. Why? Are most folks ignorant or simply blinded by racial politics that they continue to be led down a path of obvious destruction?

The reality is that despite the new name being flaunted by the PNC and the babble of progress claimed by the PPP, Guyanese need to wake up and realize that for too long, they’ve been held back by both parties as more jobless continues and more skilled nationals flee. It is time for a One Guyana government yes, but not simply as a gimmick of the PNC. A One Guyana government truly must be a coalition of parties and individuals with the best interest of the country at heart, who can move the country beyond the racial politics that has plagued it for too many decades.

It is time for Guyanese to take back Guyana and strive for a united front that can attract investment, fight and eliminate crime and narco-trafficking and abolish race voting once and for all. In 2011, we do not need to have a cup and a palm tree again leading us down a dark tunnel of despair and economic stagnation. It’s time for Guyanese to awaken and realize that neither of these two parties have the solution to the problems in Guyana and to push for a coalition government that can truly make a difference. This is the solution to Guyana’s problems – not the PPP or the PNC again!

NOTE: The writer is publisher of The Caribbean World News Network (caribworldnews.com), the only daily Caribbean Diaspora newswire.

"CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN OUR DEMOCRACY"

LEADERSHIP AND RENEWAL

THE IRRELEVANCE OF RELEVANCE

FOUNDED JANUARY 2006

LEADERSHIP and RENEWAL

INTRODUCTION

It was Mahatma Gandhi who once said "if we practice an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, soon the whole world will be blind and toothless".

Little did he know he was speaking about Guyana where leadership is blind and the citizenry are toothless?

Guyana is facing an economic, social and political chasm, and the enormity of these treats blocks the vision of its leadership: political , business and civic leadership.

Guyanese, both at home and in the Diaspora, are also choosing to be blind.

And there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.

The International Community, neither blind nor toothless, is conscious of Guyana's societal disintegration. They too recognize Guyana for what it truly is: .a country facing a social, political and economic meltdown.

If Guyanese have difficulties recognizing and facing these significant threats and at the same time look beyond them, then Guyanese are suffering from a "severe crisis of leadership, common sense and conscience".

Guyanese over the decades, have become great pretenders who continually deceive themselves by worshipping at the altar of the "irrelevance of relevance".

Issues of relevance are not discussed because of the racial insecurities in the society. Issues of irrelevance dominate the daily debate: 28 years of PNC rule versus14 years of PPP rule. Guyanese keep looking backwards instead of forward because this serves the purposes of racial and commercial entrepreneurs in their midst.

Guyanese are yet unable to "learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow".

So Guyanese merrily ignore the signs of a disintegrating society. Guyanese readily ignore the treats to life and limb and plunge themselves in preparing for the next elections, knowing fully well that this event only opens the "sores of discontent".

As one of Guyana's true patriots keeps reminding us:

"For over a decade we have failed miserably in trying to resolve our political difficulties. All of our efforts remain still-born .on the altars of constitutional stalemate, political intransigence, operational impasse, administrative incompetence and racist distrust. Our external donors remain steadfast in their commitment to get things right. Their good intentions continue to flounder."

This great soul continues to say. " As the date for elections draws closer, the environment in which these arguments are engaged will become more vituperative. Accusations, insults, irrelevancies will intensify. There will be opportunities for extremist political, military, criminal, racist and narcotics-related forces to add their voices, as well as their insatiable guns to the debate. The stage will be set for another predictable outcome".

Mayhem will continue to be Guyana's friend if the rush towards elections with an unacceptable elections list continues.. This time the quantity and sophistication of the weaponry holding court, will belie even the wildest imagination. The carnage has already started.

If Guyanese can free themselves from the fantasy that the 2006 elections will make things right and peaceful, and for a moment realize that the country will only leap closer to the chasm, regardless of who wins the most votes, then it is time for all sane-minded citizens and well wishers to stop this madness.

What is clear is that "a generation of racists, ideologists and individuals, under the disguise of political parties, businessmen and saviours" have dismantled the idea of peace and security in Guyana.

This has ultimately made Guyana fertile ground for drug barons and their cartels. These new forces are better armed, more organized, better equipped and better financed than our government and armed forces.

Many Guyanese today recognize national priorities must be changed, but they don't know how to go about this endeavour. This is because the mask of "race" permeates our every thought.

RENEWAL

Guyana is a slowly dying society and a society subjected to many serious vulnerabilities, including death squads. These vulnerabilities are often identified and intellectualized as divisive politics, rampant crime and little economic growth. Deeper, much deeper though, Guyana is on the fast track of becoming a Failed State.

There is much political rhetoric about whether Guyana is a Failed State or not. This will be dealt with in another paper from COMMON GROUND. However, using the twelve categories of risks or vulnerabilities established by the Carnegie Endowment's Fund for Peace, Guyana is close. . The social degradation of the country is beyond belief: functional illiteracy, hopelessness and the lack of respect for life are just small indices.

Visionary and courageous LEADERSHIP is the first major step towards Guyana's renewal.

Citizen participation is another critical step. A key recognition must be that "there are more things that unite Guyanese as a country that things that divide ".

Once visionary leadership recognizes that no particular interest group, be it racial or external (drug cartels) can prosper for long if the Nation is disintegrating and that every group must have an overriding interest in the well-being of the whole society, servant leadership will do the courageous thing and bring about the healing of the society.

Guyana is a racially divided society. This is not new. What is also not new is the belief that the 2006 Elections will solve our problems. This is tragic thinking. Guyanese have lost their ways and it seems as if Guyanese have also lost the ability to reason.

The recent Stabroek News editorial (SN 6 Nov 2005) highlights the state of "debate" in the country.

"We have always had something of a penchant for unreal debate in this country, but never more so than now. As the polarisation process continues in the penumbra of the 2006 elections, and the sense of insecurity and/or foreboding about what could happen grows, we seem to be spending more and more time railing against the miasma. We operate in a twilight world of half-truths, quarter-truths, myths and falsehoods, and the constructs being used to explain the inconvenient portions of reality which poke through the fog are neither grounded in a full appraisal of the facts, nor in a commitment to the truth.

Traditionally we have closed our eyes to any illegality committed by members of our own group, particularly if the perception is that it has contributed to making us feel more secure. On the subject of illegalities committed by the other side, however, we have always been voluble. It was in this context - as well in the larger one of our political history in general - that the Buxton crisis evolved. And the opposing accounts of that crisis, which still has not ended, continue to obfuscate reality and serve as an impediment to getting any handle on how the other side really feels".

PROBLEMS TO BE FACED

The words of Guyanese children should help political, business and civic leadership to understand the political quagmire the country is in.

The 2003 Rights Of Children (ROC) survey of Young Guyanese between the ages of 15-23 years should make us step back and shudder.

Among the findings of this survey which was conducted across all 10 Regions of Guyana, were the following.

1. Forty-nine (49) percent of our children indicated that politicians have had a negative influence on their attitudes towards Race. Another twelve (12) percent indicated Television and seven (7) percent Religion.

2. Only fourteen (14) percent trust politicians.

3. Over fifty (50) percent believe it will take over 10 years or NEVER for there to be racial harmony in Guyana.

4. Forty-five (45) percent would prefer to live somewhere other than in Guyana.

5. Twenty-one (21) percent believed "better politics and government" would reduce racial tensions; another twenty-seven (27) percent believed " religious harmony" would reduce tensions; thirteen (13) percent believe "improvement in security", and nineteen (19) percent believed 'availability of opportunities" would reduce tensions.

These are Guyana's future speaking to us.

Guyana faces many difficult and incredible problems. They exist in Guyana's political, economic, social and cultural arrangements. Here is a list of some of the critical ones.

POLITICAL ISSUES

1. GOVERNANCE

The current political winner-take-all Westminster model has not served the country well because of racial voting, political intransigence, poor governance and Guyana's multicultural heritage.

Guyana claims it has one of the freest Constitutions in the world. Denying this perception is that no where else in the world and especially in Westminster style political arrangements does there exist an Executive Presidency. Traditional Westminster models have a Parliament to which the President (Prime Minster) is accountable.

When, in addition, because of primarily racial insecurities, electoral democracy is characterized by an "ethnic census", the Westminster model is simply not adequate for political and social peace or justice.

Today, the ruling party has an Executive President, complete control of the Cabinet and a total majority in Parliament. Added to the lack of decorum and lack of historical parliamentary sophistication, governance in Guyana reinforces the view that the winner indeed takes all and is unaccountable to the citizenry.

In its current mode and in a historical equivalence, electoral democracy does not structurally work in Guyana.

In addition, racial politics in Guyana has presented the citizenry with overflowing racial connotations to the justice received and perceived by many in the society.

The structure of Guyana's Governance model will always create very difficult times for the country.

2. RACIAL ENMITY

Guyana is rapidly approaching a dangerous stage in its racial climate. Recent incidents of racially provocative communal violence in rural Indian areas are increasing but attracting little official attention. In Kaneville, the body of an African was dragged around the village behind a vehicle after being nearly beaten to death. Fear has gripped many villages and acting first before asking questions , reflects this tension. With many villages being heavily armed, the potential for disaster lurks in the dark, and in the light. Anything could be a spark

Racial tensions are now escalating to racial enmity rekindling memories of the 60s, when racial tensions surged and spiraled out of control. Between 1962 and 1964, widespread race riots claimed more than 176 innocent lives. In addition, 920 persons were injured, 1400 homes were destroyed by fire, and about 15,000 persons were forced to move their houses to settle in more secure ethnic communities.

Race is a critical reality in today's Guyana.

The cold blood execution of Ronald Waddell highlights where we are heading.

The disappearance of 33AK-47 from the main army storage bond adds another fearful dimension to the equation. Either these guns were sold for commercial reasons or voluntarily given to criminals or anti-government forces.

LEADERSHIP is needed.

3. DRUGS AND OUR DEMOCRACY

"Drugs are within us and among us" as the saying goes. Guyana is a criminalized State. Most people are aware of its presence through knowledge of who the drug cartel leaders are and the all pervasiveness of drug money and laundering activities through commercial establishments.

Guyana has become a major trans-shipment country for drugs from South America to the USA, Canada and Europe. Guyana's geographical location to some of the largest producers, exporters and consumers of narcotics, its porous contiguous borders and vast swathe of territory that is unpopulated and unwatched, a small unequipped and unmotivated army combined with cooperating elements of the Government and public, make the country a haven for the drug trade.

The recent US Congress International Narcotics Strategy Report 2006 states that 50-60% of the Guyanese economy is based on money from illicit enterprises. It has been claimed that housing schemes, hotels and other commercial enterprises are being funded through money laundering activities. Guyanese are today constantly being arrested and indicted in the United States for drug smuggling, conspiracy, arms possession and other related charges.

4 . DEATH SQUADS AND OUR DEMOCRACY

Death squads have operated in Guyana since the 1970s. Today, drug trafficking in Guyana has now created a more deadly mix of political and criminal death squads, some of which are involved in both.

In 2002, a significant crime wave began with the escape of 5 African prisoners from jail. Over time, these individuals started to call themselves "freedom fighters", .a merging of criminal and political activities. It is likely that the PPP government, not trusting the Police and Armed forces, who are predominantly African, took matters in their own hands to protect their Indian constituency.

In 2004, the Minister of Home Affairs of Guyana was accused of empowering and managing death squads. His accuser took evidence to the US Ambassador but was assassinated before a Commission of Inquiry was implemented. Without this chief witness and with other witnesses not coming forward for fear of being killed, no credible evidence against the Minister was found of his personal involvement. However, the Minister was found to have strong personal relationships with known assassins, approved gun licenses for them even though it was not his jurisdiction and to have had visits to his home and phone calls with them, even on the nights of some of the assassinations. As a recent Stabroek News editorial highlighted the problem:

"Shadowy death squads backed by shadowy funding cannot find justification because it is perceived that they may have made Indians more secure in the immediate term. Apart from undermining the State, they too can only breed retaliatory violence, and will make the Indians no safer in the end than the Buxton gunmen will make the Africans safe. The simple truth is that if one group is unsafe, then everyone is unsafe. True security can only come with the Rule of Law, effective law enforcement and strong, independent institutions; there is no alternative. And in the meantime, a little more honesty in debate all around would be helpful so we can grope towards discussing the real problems of the nation in a meaningful way, rather than unreal constructs which if taken to their conclusion can lead us into anarchy".

5. ECONOMIC ISSUES

Guyana's economy has been struggling between moderate growth and decline for several years. Today, Guyana stands at the bottom of CARICOM's economic league tables, with the exception of Haiti. Growth rates over the past decade show the following results:

1. 1991 6.1%

2. 1992 7.7%

3 1993-95 7.3%

4. 1995-98 4.1%

5. 1999-01 1.4%

6. 2002-2004 0.7%

During these periods, not many jobs have been created although many infrastructure projects have been completed. Guyana has over this period obtained much debt relief. However, an additional fresh US$800-900 million has been borrowed. Floods have also devastated the economy with rice production dropping by 23% from last year's figures and 32% for sugar. With pending EU cuts, a difficult road lies ahead.

For Guyana, the key economic indicators, such as the growth rate, the trade and fiscal balances and the domestic and foreign debt, are all trending in the wrong direction. Macroeconomic stability has been achieved but rising unemployment has negated this benefit as significant new private investments, except for money laundering activities, have not been achieved. Most University of Guyana graduates cannot find jobs and many skilled people have emigrated.

Overall, it is not difficult to say that the country needs economic growth if its citizens are to beat poverty.

Stagnant economic growth, the lack of global competitiveness with our largest foreign reserve earner (sugar), the continuous migration of skills, a small unsustainable internal market, a huge underground economy, a debilitating debt burden, meager investments, significant money laundering through the buying of legitimate businesses, poor infrastructure, and economic polarization are all a danger to the entire country.

Economic collapse is prevented by remittances of approximately $150 million annually and donor aid.

6 MIGRATION

A new World Bank study has found that Guyana ranks the highest in the skilled emigration rate from developing countries, amounting to eighty-nine percent. Guyana is followed by Jamaica, 85.1 per cent; Haiti, 83.6 per cent; Suriname, 47.9 per cent; Ghana, 46.9 per cent; Mozambique, 45.1 per cent; Kenya, 38.4 per cent; Laos, 37.4 per cent; Uganda, 35.6 per cent; El Salvador, 31.0 per cent; Sri Lanka, 29.7 per cent; and Nicaragua, 29.6.

Guyana is a Nation in exile with more than 800,000 Guyanese living in foreign countries , more than there are in Guyana itself today. . The vast majority of Guyanese are in the USA, Canada and the United Kingdom but thousands now live in the neighboring countries of Surnaime and the Caribbean. Just recently, Guyanese became the fourth largest immigrant group in New York behind the Chinese, Jamaicans and Dominican Republicans. There are over 166,000 Guyanese in the borough of Queens, New York.

This is a very daunting reality in terms of the development of the country's economy, even if foreign investment were to be available.

7. POVERTY

Poverty is an overwhelming reality in Guyana as in many developing countries. As the UNICEF web sites describes:

"Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not being able to go to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom. Poverty has many faces, changing from place to place and across time, and has been described in many ways. .More often, poverty is a situation people want to escape".

Guyana has developed a Poverty Reduction Development Strategy (PRSP) and is working towards Millennium Development Goals.

Growth is however, a critical part of this equation if poverty is to be alleviated. Guyana is a country rich in natural reserves and strategies need to be put in place to facilitate growth.

SOCIAL ISSUES

In Guyana today, there are many serious social issues. Violent crime, murders and mayhem are on the increase. There is hardly a day without some brutal encounter. Lives are lost with such regularity that Guyanese have come to expect crime and murder as normal.

Rape and gender abuse has been historic and brutal. Guyana also has frightful levels of functional illiteracy, a severe HIV/AIDS pandemic, degenerating social values and a fundamental disrespect for human life.

LEADERSHIP AND RENEWAL

Of all the countries I have visited in the world, Guyana has the most unrealized potential." Former President Jimmy Carter

Guyana is a divided Nation with a stagnant economy. It is the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. To many in the international community, Guyana is suffering from a "crisis of governance".

Over the last 40 years, Guyana has made very little political, social or economic progress. After years of pursuing failed policies, the country is characterized by racial segmentation, poor governance, a vision inconsistent with global trends of free market economies and participatory Democracy. It also has a depleted workforce.

Guyana is at a stage in its history in which it is an irrelevant global actor both politically and economically and is on the verge of economic and social marginalization.

Guyana ultimately needs to recognize the following facts:

1. It is buffeted by international forces over which it has very little control.

2. Economic growth is fundamental to social progress and poverty is more debilitating and costly when there is no such growth.

3. The primary function of the State is to assure security for its citizens. This means among other things, job creation and economic security.

4. Guyana has to compete with economies whose labor forces, infrastructure and social climate are superior. Investment decisions are made around issues of stability, productivity, efficiency and return on capital. Unskilled labor is in abundant supply globally.

5. Commodity products (rice, sugar, bauxite) are irrelevant if the country does not have secure markets without which there is no export opportunity.

6. Without dramatic, revolutionary changes and the courage of leadership that focuses on Guyana's economic ascendancy, Guyana will become further marginalized in this Millennium.

In essence, Guyana needs LEADERSHIP and RENEWAL, if it is to successfully provide social and economic security for its citizens.

Guyana has four needs:

1. A PLURAL DEMOCRACY: a multi-racial, multi-party political culture in which every Guyanese is equally valued regardless of race, color, creed or economic means and in which there is a fundamental understanding that Guyana has a melting-point heritage that necessitates true democratic institutions, conservative social values and a deep respect for human rights, religious tolerance and the "rule of law".

2. A FREE ENTERPRISE ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK that promotes rapid, sustainable economic and social growth nourished by a skilled, strong, efficient Public Sector supporting a vibrant and competitive socially conscious Private Sector. This economic strategy must provide revenues for social purposes. The tax base in Guyana is very small, hence new investments must include private public partnerships with villages and integrated development strategies. All races must be empowered to ensure ownership and not just job creation. With economic equity, the political environment will always be unstable.

3. SERVANT LEADERSHIP that is visionary, courageous, healing, knowledgeable and compassionate. This leadership should have zero tolerance for crime, corruption and racism and would forge an atmosphere of spiritual and emotional nationalism.

4. A PHILOSOPHY OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS that allows for alliances between the Government and the Private Sector; Guyana and other Countries; the poor and the well-off; Unions and the Private Sector; foreign capital and domestic partners; NGOs and society-at-large. Good governance, the establishment of a flourishing economy, adequate health care, and the eradication or alleviation of poverty can be accomplished through Partnerships.

WHERE DOES GUYANA GO FROM HERE?

Seeking and finding COMMON GROUND is the first necessary prerequisite for Guyana and all races in Guyana.

This means the Government, Opposition and Civil Society must find a way of resolving differences as soon as possible. . It means that racial and violence entrepreneurs must be stopped dead in their tracts. It means that "healing" must occur in the country and in the Diaspora.

A house divided is a house that will always fall. This has been Guyana's story since Independence

Good Governance, the establishment of racial harmony and the alleviation or eradication of poverty can only be accomplished after COMMON GROUND is obtained. Apart from the practice of Good Governance, a strategy of economic revitalization is necessary to make racial harmony a national reality. Economic growth is fundamental to social progress and an absolute necessity if poverty is to be alleviated.

Without COMMON GROUND, democracy, nation building, peace and security are all pipe dreams. Putting Guyana first has to be a paramount principle. Putting Guyana first is also a cardinal rule for achieving positive visionary change in Guyana for and behalf of all Peoples of Guyana.

COMMON GROUND can only be achieved if Guyanese, domestically and in the Diaspora, work together to ensure both the Government and Opposition parties reach a common accord.

Guyanese at home are heavily influenced by Guyanese in the Diaspora.

Guyana also cannot achieve participatory democracy or sustainable economic growth without the full participation of Guyanese in the Diaspora.

Guyana must be put First, before party or individual needs.

Secondly, Guyanese have to take back the sovereignty of the country from external forces and their counterparts in the Guyana drug trade. Only with this occurring, through unity and strength, will there be an opportunity for choices about good governance, choices about racial peace, choices about economic prosperity, choices about social growth and choices about hope for our children and our country.

Unfortunately, Guyanese on theirr own do not have the resources and capabilities to do this. Guyana needs outside help .to accomplish this task.

In 1992, Guyanese made a choice and enjoyed the triumph of electoral democracy . There was foreign intervention in this process in the form of President Jimmy Carter and other institutions. Most Guyanese felt that the country was at the dawn of a new era.

An era of peace, prosperity and democracy.

Dreams blossomed. There was a feeling of great anticipation. A feeling of freedom. A feeling of hope. A feeling of celebration.

Sadly, leadership at all levels of society: government, private sector and civil society have failed Guyana.

Guyanese are now a desperate People living in a desperate Nation.

A proud people with the dreams of "One People, One Nation, One Destiny", Guyanese are everything but that.

Guyanese need better arrangements so that Guyanese can retain their dreams and aspirations.

There is a famous saying by Kahlil Gibran:

"We choose our joys and sorrows long before we experience them".

Guyana needs new arrangements that will serve all the Peoples of Guyana or continue to experience the "sorrows" that have chosen.

Guyana needs new arrangements that will heal Guyana's racial rift.

Guyana needs new arrangements that will encourage, facilitate and ensure Nation Building.

Guyana needs new arrangements that can navigate the "rapids and cross-waves" of global geopolitics.

COMMON GROUND is about the vision of a plural democracy: a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural multi-party society in which every Guyanese, regardless of age, race, religion or creed, has an equal opportunity to realize his or her enormous potential in a peaceful manner. .

COMMON GROUND is about the need to encourage equity for all by promoting and nurturing individual initiative regardless of race, religion or class and that will ensure no person will be discriminated against or given special privileges.

Social growth in a multi racial, multi cultural and multi ethnic society starts and ends with good governance. Social growth cannot be created without peace, racial equity, racial respect and a just judiciary.

COMMON GROUND is about Good Governance. This involves an appropriate balance between the State, the Private Sector and Civil Society. The State has to create conducive political and legal environments. The Private Sector has to be able to generate jobs and wealth within the context of a business friendly climate, and Civil Society has to be responsible for providing social and political integration and by mobilizing all citizens to participate in economic, political, cultural and social activities. In short, Civil Society has to become the glue and moral fabric of democracy.

Sadly enough, Guyanes live today in the bondage and heritage of an inglorious past history.

Guyana needs LEADERSHIP and RENEWAL at all levels of our society: State, Private Sector and Civil Society. For social growth Guyana needs a better system of governance and leadership with the courage and skills to forge social cohesion.

It was Nelson Mandela who once said when asked about what saved South Africa from civil war:

"The guiding principle in the search for and establishment of a non-racial inclusive democracy in South Africa has been that there are good men and women to be found in all groups and from all sectors of society, and that in an open and free society those South Africans will come together to jointly and co-operatively realise the common good".

COMMON GROUND believes the correct arrangements will allow Guyana to move in the direction of social cohesion through the pursuit of common goals, shared burdens, compromise for the good of all, and more importantly, create the environment where all social needs can be met.

The future has very different challenges.

Unity, common vision and the grace of doing what is right for the People of the country; all races and creeds, can be leadership's only mandate.

Destiny is always predetermined by action and faith.

Guyana stands at a stage in history where there must be another opportunity to have change, positive change, another chance to change from a destiny of destruction and racial unease.

Guyana has always been a land of great potential. It still is.

Race, ideology and political selfishness have led Guyana to where it is: a divided Nation, a stagnant economy, unabated migration, poverty and suffering beyond belief.

Guyana is crime invested and drug infested.

The responsibility to change this rests with each and every Guyanese..

The will to change the status quo should be the legacy to Guyana's children and to their future.

Guyana needs reconciliation. Guyana needs to bring its families home.

Guyanes can make this happen because there are lots of good men and women in Guyana and in the Diaspora.

LEADERSHIP with vision is needed for RENEWAL.

Guyanese at home and in the Diaspora both need to deal with relevant issues and not be blinded by past injustices and racial prisms of viewing the world.

If this continues, then everyone and everything in Guyana will soon become irrelevant.

And Guyanese will continue to live the "irrelevance of relevance".

commongroundguyana@mail.com

Is the Summit of the Americas process facing a crisis?

By Odeen Ishmael - Posted November 24th. 2005

The dust has not yet settled on the fourth Summit of the Americas. The Argentine resort city of Mar del Plata where it was held on 4-5 November is still licking its wounds inflicted on it by groups of violent protesters. And politically, a diplomatic row has erupted between Venezuela and Mexico over what their leaders have said about each other during and after the summit. No doubt, the integration objective of the summit process, including the free trade process, has taken a serious punch and there is now some scepticism as to whether it will ever recover.

The spotlight at the summit was focused on the future of the proposed FTAA. A parallel "people's summit" along with massive street demonstrations denounced the proposed FTAA. And in official summit debate itself, the leaders expressed sharp differences in opinions about the free trade process.

Indeed, the hemispheric leaders spent considerable time in debating the future of the FTAA, plans for which were moving merrily along up to just two years ago. Brazil's objection to the maintenance of agricultural subsidies by the United States - also supported by other Mercosur countries and the smaller economies like Caricom - stalled the process. Around the same time, too, President Chavez denounced the FTAA and floated his own "Bolivarian Alternative" to free trade (ALBA) - an "anti-imperialist" plan which excludes the United States but includes Cuba.

The summit finally decided that 29 countries - with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela excepted - would move forward on the FTAA negotiations. President Chavez championed the "burying" of the FTAA, while the four Mercosur Presidents preferred to wait to see if the December WTO ministerial in Hong Kong makes a favourable decision on the issue of agricultural subsidies before they could decide on their participation in the FTAA discussions.

On the other hand, the Presidents of Mexico, the United States, the Andean and Central American countries expressed strong support for the FTAA claiming to have benefited tremendously through bilateral free trade arrangements.

Guyana, like the other Caricom countries, opted in favour of supporting continuing discussions on the FTAA. President Bharrat Jagdeo, however, stated that while Guyana would remain open-minded about the FTAA, the success of such a free trade arrangement would be premised on its ability to provide special and differential treatment for developing countries like Guyana. Coupled with special differential treatment, an additional condition for the success of the FTAA would be the completion of the WTO negotiations on a number of issues including that of agricultural issues.

Of significant interest, Caricom countries took a position contrary to that of Venezuela on the FTAA. It will be recalled that PetroCaribe critics had posited that Venezuela was "buying" the support of Caricom countries through this petroleum agreement. However, this has not happened at Mar del Plata; actually Caricom countries indicated their preference for the FTAA process to move forward. Clearly, these small countries are confident of benefits they can accrue from free trade along with the eventual setting up of the Caricom single market and economy; and they feel that if Trinidad and Tobago acquires the headquarters of the FTAA, when it is finally established, lasting economic benefits will flow down to the entire region.

But the summit was not only about the FTAA. The final declaration - 76 paragraphs long - gave attention to a wide range of other issues affecting economic and social development in the Americas. Much emphasis was placed on the question of poverty, and the leaders pledged an increased focus on job creation. In his address to the summit, President Jagdeo said that creating jobs would bring forth the fruits of democracy. He spoke of the need for land reform, the removal of corruption in Government and providing the options for people to have meaningful jobs. Critical to the achievement of that goal is the necessity of a favourable external trade environment. This position was supported by other Caricom leaders who attended. (All the Prime Ministers of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States were conspicuously absent, giving the impression in some diplomatic quarters that the Summit of the Americas was not a priority on their agenda).

Further, the ambitious summit action plan proposed an extensive list of multinational projects aimed at promoting economic and social development in the hemisphere. But it will be interesting to see how the Inter-American Development Bank, a major partner in the summit process, will be able to garner and allocate funds towards these enterprises.

Currently, the dust in the summit process continues to be kicked up by the animosities between Mexico and Venezuela At the summit, the FTAA discussions escalated into rancour between the Venezuelan and Mexican presidents. Their verbal exchange eventually resulted in the withdrawal of Ambassadors, and the world now looks on to see how this Venezuelan-Mexican standoff will play out.

Obviously, integration is certainly taking a beating as a result of all this, and it is in the interest of the other countries of the hemisphere to help in the restoration of cordiality between the two presidents. Differences in opinions and ideologies should inspire healthy debate; they should not be allowed to breed animosities in the region. All the countries should take a side. They must opt for healthy critical co-existence while choosing the side of hemispheric integration.

Caracas, 22 November 2005

(Dr. Odeen Ishmael is the Ambassador of Guyana to Venezuela.)

The Debate on Crime in Guyana

By Dennis Wiggins - Posted November 12th. 2005

In keeping with the spirit of your editorial, titled Unreal Debate; if we are going to have a debate about crime, let us have an honest debate. Any debate about crime in Guyana must deal with corruption, including widespread corruption in government, corruption in the private sector, drug trafficking, crimes being committed by the criminals in Buxton on the citizens of Guyana, crimes being committed by the law enforcement officers on hundreds of black men and their families. However, do not let us stop there, let us debate the crimes committed by men of all races on the women and children in Guyana, domestic crimes that the society has so far virtually ignored. And when we are finished having this debate let us have a conversation about what needs to be done.

There are those in our society including most notably Mr. Tacuma Ogunse and Mr. Ronald Wadell, who have argued and continue to argue that the Buxton situation is one of African resistance; a resistance against African marginalization, poverty, and extrajudicial killings. If this resistance is an African resistance, then why are these fighters for African causes, killing, raping, intimidating and robbing Africans in Buxton and on the East Coast? Was this resistance against Mr. Brian Hamilton, the young Black entrepreneur who was murdered in 2002? If this resistance is against marginalization, poverty and extrajudicial killings by the police, then why are they attacking, robbing kidnapping and murdering innocent Indian citizens. Could it be that Mr. Wadell is mistaken, that this, so called resistance is nothing more than vicious actions of criminals who are not concerned about the representative or ideological underpinnings that has been forced upon them? Could it be that these are criminals concerned only with their individual actions and the opportunistic power and control such actions have on the society? Even if the Buxton situation is one of African resistance, what have we come to that we can only solve our problems through militarism. Mr. Wadell and others, who have supported this argument, must be told that the politics of militarization has done nothing to advance the conditions of the people in whose name they are most often fought. The politics of militarization have only destroyed and improvised already impoverished people in Africa, Latin American and now in the Middle East. So if this resistance is the type of resistance that will be encouraged then I must join with Andyie and Al Creighton and on behalf of all African Guyanese in saying, Not In My Name. No Mr. Wadell we are not thankful to the almighty for these criminals who have laid siege to the historic village of Buxton and Friendship, the village that our fore parents purchased and built with their blood sweat and tears. No! we are not thankful for the criminalization of our young people.

While I do believe that Mr. Ogunse and Mr. Wadell are horribly mistaken about the characterization they have placed on these criminals in Buxton, we cannot and must not dismiss the issues they have raised. African marginalization and poverty is a reality in the Guyanese society. This marginalization and poverty, though not the making of the PPP administration, is perpetuated by the PPP administration in the context of the racial politics they have, and continue to pursue. The PPP administration has stood by and watched without intervention, hundreds of black men gunned down extra judicially by the police but instead they have rewarded an ex Minister of Home Affairs with a diplomatic post in India, who was forced to resigned because of his admitted association with a known criminal, Axel Williams, and his alleged involvement with the death squad, responsible for the murders of scores of innocence citizens. The PPP administration has continued to administer the policies of International Financial Institutions that support the suppression of wages in the public sector, where African Guyanese dominate. The PPP administration has failed to strategically pursue investment for the revival of the Bauxite industry; support creation of jobs for Africans in African communities thus leaving many African youths unemployed and susceptible to criminal activities; and support economic activities in African communities. At the same time they allocate disproportionately resources for development in Indian dominated communities, award contracts disproportionately and questionably to East Indian contractors who employ only East Indians; ignores discrimination in the private sector and fight relentlessly for the survival of the sugar industry that support the livelihood of their Indian constituencies . However, let us not be mistaken that this marginalization and poverty concerns Africans only. If we are citizens of conscience then we will see the marginalization and poverty suffer by the Indigenous peoples of Guyana and the many poor East Indians, Portuguese and people of mixed races.

There is this class/race contradiction that is also a reality in our society. This contradiction has allowed the Indian Guyanese outrage about crimes being committed by African criminals on their person, while they ignore the crimes being committed by East Indians upon East Indians, including violence against Indian women and children. Likewise most African Guyanese while outraged about marginalization and poverty perpetuated by PPP administration, are silent about crimes committed by African Guyanese on African Guyanese and Indian Guyanese, including women and children. This contradiction has allowed the PNC to give them inadequate representation. Why do African Guyanese only blame the government when most of the extrajudicial killings are committed by African Guyanese police men, administered by an African Guyanese commissioner of police? Where is the outrage in our society when there is a less than 6% conviction rate in regards to all rape crimes brought before the courts and rape victims which include many children have no recourse? It is these contradictions that we must confront.

The outrage about crime must not stop at the level of crimes committed by the poor, but must include crimes committed by the political elites upon the working class and poor people in Guyana. Guyanese of all races must be equally outrage about the corruption in the government and the private sector. Such corruption not only affects African Guyanese, it also affects Indian Guyanese and all Guyanese including poor women and children. Corruption reduces funds for healthcare, education, job creation and poverty alleviation. Corruption produces incompetence, cronyism and ineptitude. This corruption is not only a feature of the Indian elites, it is also a feature of African elites and as a result, it is the poor who suffer. Yet these political demagogues either deliberately or by incompetence can only analyze issues through their racial spectacles, and as such they ignore the real issues that affect the people.

The PPP administration while boasting about how many schools and roads they have built since in office (which facilitates their corruption) has failed to support livable wages for teachers and support education advancement in Guyana. Guyana which was once a country of the highest educational standard in this hemisphere now has the lowest. The PPP administration has refused to pay livable wages to attract better qualified nurses and doctors to improve the health care system. This administration has so far failed to implement an Economic Development Strategy to facilitate, improve and encourage private sector development that will create jobs and alleviate poverty, while they have languishing, the Guyana Development Strategy. In addition where is the government strategy to fight drug trafficking in Guyana that has become a dominant feature of Guyanese economy?

When these issues are raised, the PPP administration and others invoke the "blame the PNC" strategy. But the PNC has not been in office for the past twelve years. These are issues dealing with the incompetence of an administration that has been in office for twelve years and must be made responsible for the current state of fairs in Guyana. It is time that supporters of this administration begin to ask tough questions of the government for the sake of a better Guyana and not support a political party on the bases that it claims to represent their ethnicity. Equally it is important that Africans in Guyana begin to examine the representation they have received from the PNC and evaluate if such representation warrants them giving their vote blindly to a political party because such party supposedly represents their skin color. This type of politics is detrimental to the country and benefits only the political elites on both sides.

What is to be done is the question that must form the basis of a national conversation and a new politics.

What is to be done, is demand a society based of integrity and moral certitude, a society that will reject the politics of race and exclusion, a society that will reject the politics that has impoverished Guyanese for too long, a society that will reject the politics of militarization which has nothing new to offer but death and destruction and further impoverishment. Guyanese have to embrace a new politics, the politics of self emancipation, organization, inclusion and community involvement, to embrace the politics of dialogue and conversation.

"Progressive Black people in all parts of the world must be able to distinguish between those who support the politics of healing, reconciliation and truth and those who promote the primitive accumulation and militarism in the name of racial politics" (Prof. Horace Campbell in the foreword of The Morning After, by Eusi Kwayana, 2005)

Celebrating Some Gifts Produced in
the Life of the Late Dr. Cedric Grant

By Dr. Festus L. Brotherson, Jr. - Posted June 30th. 2005

The news of the passing of yet another distinguished Guyanese -- this time Dr. Cedric Grant -- hit like a rumble of thunder, so sudden and hard was the impact and so widely far reaching the effect. He will be greatly missed and mourned not only by his loving family, but also by everyone whose life he entered and touched in many positive ways, including mine. He will be missed, too, by thousands of university students who benefited for many years from his agile mind. That gifted mindset frequently challenged them with extraordinarily stimulating insights into our rapidly changing world as the globalization phenomenon took hold.

Cedric Grant was a genuine scholar in addition to his possessing often displayed strengths as a diplomat. His deliberative manner of speaking emphasized careful word choice in search of Baconian but more so Hobbesian excellence. That British thinker had sparked a public, lifelong quarrel with persons of intellect who, in his view, did not demonstrate parsimonious exactitude in choice of words for their precise definitions, meanings and for advancing human understanding. As he insisted it in his Leviathan: So that in the right definition of names lies the first use of speech; which is the acquisition of science. And in wrong and no definitions lies the first abuse from which proceeds all false senseless tenets ...Natural sense and imagination are not subject to absurdity!

The requirement of precision in meanings was usually in conflict with the rapidity of thought in the human mind that was always in perpetual and quick motion. Thus, the way towards minimizing errors in communication involved unceasing efforts of the speaker or writer to be more deliberative and calm in their work. This is most difficult, and I am told by many in Guyana that people see daily to what extent are these flaws by listening to radio and watching talk TV; and even in some of the letters-to-the-editor in this medium (smile). I believe that one of Dr. Grant?s more compelling gifts was his frequent essaying to be accurate in analyses and findings by trying always to convey precise meanings of things being discussed. His slow, pensive manner in responding to questions or expressing a thought to advance a discussion or solve a problem provides part of the proof.

When people that I sincerely admire leave us in a manner of finality and permanence, my coping approach usually includes celebrating the gifts their lives produced. As I continue to do so privately in Dr. Grant?s case, I am honored to also share some personal reflections and comments, both wryly humorous and seriously academic, about this most talented, able soul that God has called home to rest.

I first met Cedric sometime in the early 1980s when he was Guyana's ambassador to Washington, DC. At that time, I was performing special duties for the then ruling Peoples' National Congress (now PNCR) while pursuing graduate work at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). In the beginning, our contacts were near exclusively by correspondence and telephone. Those telephone conversations soon blossomed into long intellectual discourses and then ballooned into vigorous, rigorous debates on political leadership strategies and styles, political philosophy, and subjects having to do with policymaking in the Third World. Dr. Grant was, for me, an impressive deep thinker, and long distance friend and problem solver of bureaucratic mistakes in the homeland. I gained many insights from his experience and wisdom and found his energy and enthusiasm encouraging and infectious

Once, we were roommates for a short time at the (1987) annual conference of the Caribbean Studies Association (CSA) that took place in Belize. On another occasion, in late 1984 or early 1985, he came to visit me in Los Angeles armed with a follow-up invitation from the late Forbes Burnham for me to return to Guyana and perform, under his direction, special duties for the PNC. Dr. Grant convinced me that my earlier decline of the offer did not take into account some significant changes the late president had decided upon secretly regarding new directions for the party in areas of ideology, policy and promotion of them. I accepted the proposal conditionally but Burnham passed away a few months later, making moot the whole matter.

But during Dr. Grant's stay in Los Angeles, I arranged for him to give a luncheon presentation to an assembly of deans, ranks of vice chancellors, administrators and graduate students at UCLA. He spoke on one of his favorite subjects at the time, Ideological Pluralism in the Caribbean. In parts, his presentation dissected, nay, vivisected aspects of the then in vogue Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) sponsored by the USA. The entire luncheon session, lecture and audience questions were scheduled for one and one half hours. Instead, the proceedings went on for nearly two and one half hours as many of the assembled, clearly challenged by what was for them a new horizon of thought that Dr. Grant had opened, could not seem to stop asking questions and following up with more, and more. I say this to indicate the cogency, lucidity and persuasiveness of Dr. Grant's lecture.

At that conference in Belize, I got another opportunity to see and hear Ambassador Grant in action. He was a member of a panel that placed the focus on problems of development in Belize. Most people, I think, know that Dr. Grant was an expert on Belize, he having written extensively on that state. His presentation did not disappoint. It was simply superb. What was impressive for me personally was the fact that when he and I had spoken just three days before the conference, he had told me of his intention to lock himself up in his study and place a "do not disturb" sign for all to see. Why? He was only just starting work on his paper for delivery at the conference!

Here now is my recollection of a wryly humorous incident: We had both been staying at the Le Meriden Hotel in Georgetown. I was returning from a very long walk on the seawall trying to keep fit. I espied Cedric in a dining room and decided to stop by briefly and say hello. As we conversed, the waiter brought his dinner order. The plates were heaping and the odors enticing from foods that dieticians frown upon and scold. Anticipating my criticism, Grant noted that he usually has qualms and feels guilty when he sees friends and other people exercising vigorously while he does not. But then he then said, "When the food arrives and I see it and eat it and enjoy it so thoroughly, I say to myself that people like you can go to hell and leave me alone!" We both laughed so loudly that heads at other tables turned inquiringly in our direction.

Sadly, Dr. Grant and I had a falling out of sorts a few years ago over a particularly controversial aspect of functioning by a now deceased party luminary. My deep regret is that we did not reconcile before his passing. There is a lesson in this and I have learned it well. And without any reservations, I gladly and warmly salute the life of this most able Guyanese that provided so many gifts which were shared widely in the homeland and abroad.

It is a flawed argument to exonerate the political elites and blame the Hindu religion for African Guyanese oppression

By Dennis Wiggins - Posted March 8th. 2005

To the Editor
Stabroek News

Dear Editor,

I do agree with two letters that appeared in Stabroek News, dated 02/24/05, The Caste System was not Successfully Transferred to Guyana, by Dr. Lomarsh Roopnarine and Most Hindus in Guyana know little of the Caste System by Mr. Mohan Singh. Until now, I did not read any serious challenge to Dr. Gibson's thesis, only the calls by some Indian Guyanese for the book to be banned. I had criticized the ERC's recommendation with regards to Dr. Kean Gibson's book, Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana, in defense of free speech and free intellectual discourse, but I was disappointed that no explanation or refutation came from the Hindu Guyanese community. However, I was sadden that Mr. Singh's letter, which began with an interesting analysis of the caste culture, and poses some unanswered questions for those who support Dr. Gibson's theory, deteriorated to the usual race bashing that have come to characterize so many letters dealing with ethnic relations in Guyana. In addition, he has misconstrued Br Eusi kwayana's recent letter. Let me take this opportunity to inform Mr. Singh that Africans in the western hemisphere are not descendants of slavery but rather are descendants of sophisticated cultures and civilizations that influenced many other civilizations. Slavery was a cruel and inhumane period in African history that should not be addressed in a frivolous manner. For that matter neither should the inhumane period of indentureship.

The discourse surrounding Dr. Gibson's book has become, at times, malignantly rhetorical, with no serious exploration of the historical, social and political relationship between Indian and African Guyanese. I do not know of many African Guyanese intellectuals in the social sciences that have embraced Dr. Gibson's thesis, and certainly Indian Guyanese intellectuals have rejected it, as is expected. There is no evidence to support Dr. Gibson's theory of systematic political and economic oppression of African Guyanese by Hindus in Guyana, likewise there is no evidence to support systematic violence by African Guyanese against Indian Guyanese nor is there evidence to support the notion that Indian indentured immigrants have brought with them and maintained the cultural caste system. If one should look at the Guyanese society from a sociological perspective, one would find social interactions at all levels, which include inter-religious and interracial marriages, creolization and inter cultural participation. To blame Hindus for African Guyanese impoverishment is to exonerate the political elites, from corruption, mismanagement and ineptitude that prevailed during the period of socialist authoritarian rule in Guyana, and are still continuing albeit different ruling political elites.

An historical inquiry into the origin of racial insecurity and animosity between Indian and African Guyanese, would find the answer in the post slavery plantation system (1834-1917). The plantation was in addition, a social and economic system established to maintain a social order to achieve an economic goal. During the colonial period the plantation was more than a way of life, a form of culture, or a unit of economic production. The plantation was a complex systematic social organization which evolved in the post slavery era, to accommodate the existence of former slaves and the new indentured immigrants. This organized social and economic system was structured by the white colonials, in such a way as to keep the two oppressed groups apart in order to maintain the continuity of life and work, to attain specific social and economic goals. The only way to achieve this was to create social structures (e.g. positions, roles, rules, relationship, and social classes) and social processes, (communication, socialization, social control and institutionalization). It is the operation of these social structures and processes that have contributed to ethnic insecurity and social inequality. The post slavery plantation system combined elements of race and class in a social hierarchy that created distinct classes based on color and status; racial prejudices and discrimination.

In the post plantation society, the unequal transferal of property, positions, and power created lingering racial insecurities. As with any society, once there is inequity in the distribution of resources, the passion of mistrust emerges. Philosophically, no one expresses this thesis, of the emergence of conflict in inegalitarian societies better than Jean Jacque Rousseau. Guyana was no different, especially when those inequalities were based on ethnicity and status.

Unfortunately for Guyana, on the eve of independence, the racial insecurities were exacerbated in the face of competition for political power, in the late 50's and during the 60's when the ethnic political alliances, formed to confront colonial power structures dissipated. As a result, the various ethnic groups aligned themselves based on the ethnicity of their leaders. Whether these ethnic alignments were a natural progression or deliberate exploitation of ethnic insecurity to achieve a political goal, is up for debate. What is known is that the ethnic insecurity continues to play a troubling role throughout Guyana's socio political history. However, despite the racial insecurities that persist, one can successfully argue the case that a national identity emerged in independent Guyana, even as the state supported and perpetuated ethno cultural identities.

If there a cycle of oppression in Guyana, and I do believe there is, it is one perpetuated by the political elite upon the working people of Guyana. For the African Guyanese working class, their domination of the public services has made them disproportionate victims in this cycle of oppression. The continued suppression of wages in the public services, the nationalization of the bauxite and other industries and subsequent mismanagement, contributed to African Guyanese improvisment. On the other hand, the exclusion of Indians from political power, during the 70's and 80's, has allowed them as a group to seek innovative means toward economic success. Contrary to the belief of some, the concentration of political power in the hands of African Guyanese elites did not benefit the African Guyanese working class. The reality was that, the political system and prevailing ideology created a class of bureaucrats, who appropriated for themselves an inordinate fraction of the goods and privileges of the society, (Milovan Djilas, 1977). The change of political power from one ethnic group to another has continued this appropriation of an inordinate fraction of goods and privileges to another class of bureaucrats, at the expense of the Guyanese working poor and very poor.

The Guyanese masses cannot be exonerated from this cacophonous ethnic based politics in a multi-ethnic Guyana, which has impeded progress at the basic level of existence. Their compliance, by voting along racial lines has made them equally guilty partners. However, the mechanism for change rests in the hands of the political elites. George Lamming warned against racial demagoguery to secure advantages that objectively are not about ethnicity but power. Ethnic politics is the continued obstacle toward rehabilitation, reconstruction and nation building in a democratic Guyana. It is true that the present ruling political elites, most of whom are Indian Guyanese, distribute disproportionately resources to their Indian dominated constituencies in order to maintain power. It is a flawed argument, however, to exonerate the political elites on both sides of the political spectrum and blame the Hindu religion for African Guyanese oppression.

Yours Faithfully
Dennis Wiggins

The PPP leadership was not involved in Rodney's murder

By Eusi Kwayana, David Hinds and Rupert Roopnaraine - Posted October 10th. 2004

We wish to thank Mr. Freddie Kissoon for bringing to our attention the ACDA column of September 26 2004.

It is fair to say that the PPP is guilty of failing to heed the recommendations of the 1994 Investigating Mission of the International Commission of Jurists that included, among other measures, the immediate hearing of Donald Rodney's appeal against his 1980 conviction for possession of explosives, as well as the mounting of a Commission of Inquiry into the assassination that would require the presence of Gregory Smith, then alive and well in his bolt-hole in Cayenne.

It is also fair to say that the PPP leadership was careful to distance itself from the civil rebellion of 1979-80 led by Walter Rodney and the WPA, even though in the early part of the post-referendum period there was often a PPP guest speaker on the WPA platform. Nor is it unreasonable to conclude that Walter's assault on the old political culture threatened the entire race-based political structure that included the PPP.

All this however is a far cry from saying that the PPP leadership was in any way complicitous in the assassination of Walter Rodney which the WPA has always seen as a narrow conspiracy involving sections of the military intelligence leadership and of the then ruling PNC. The PPP/C administration did not oppose the bringing of a charge of murder against Gregory Smith in 1996 and the issuing of an arrest warrant, though the efforts to extradite Smith from Cayenne in the absence of an extradition treaty with the French were desultory at best. Before the PPP administration, the PNC refused for 12 years to issue a warrant for the arrest of Gregory Smith and the court refused to allow a charge of murder to be laid against him. Instead, the Hoyte administration mounted a show inquest in 1988 that returned a verdict of "death by misadventure". The ICJ Mission found that the inquest was "marred by grave defects."

Sunday Stabroek editorial
supports the strong against the weak

By Andaiye, David Hinds, Eusi Kwayana and Nigel Westmaas - Posted