Guest Column

guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com

African Guyanese Marginalization
is a result of a Disproportionality of poverty
by Dennis Wiggins

Posted May 16th. 2006

Two recent letters have sought to refute the claim of African Guyanese marginalization, Prof. Randy Persuad's letter, titled, "The Argument that African Guyanese have been marginalized in Guyana cannot be sustained", dated 05/09/06, and Mr. Latchman Sharma's letter, titled, "I would like to see the data for Dr. Hinds proposition that African Guyanese are more disadvantaged than other groups", dated, 05/10/06.

I would like to begin by pointing out that both letters have somewhat mischaracterized Dr. Hinds' argument which was a response to your editorial, especially Mr. Sharma's letter. The argument is not a question of who is more disadvantage, rather it is a question of being disadvantaged and marginalized. Marginalization is not ethnically specific, or is it a case of, if one group is marginalized other groups are not, or whether people within other ethnic groups are not disadvantaged or marginalized. There is no argument against the reality of the marginalization of our indigenous population, and I agree that all Guyanese should be more vocal about this issue. However, what is constantly denied by supporters of the government is African Guyanese marginalization. I think when we speak of African Guyanese marginalization we are speaking in terms of a disproportionality of poverty resulting from unequal access to resources. Whenever the question of African Guyanese marginalization occupies discourse, their predominant occupation of the civil services, discipline services and the 28 years of political rule by African Guyanese political elites are pointed to as evidence that African Guyanese are not marginalized. Those who make this argument are not only disingenuous but show little understanding for the relationship between income inequality, unequal resource distribution, poverty and marginalization. In fact, the sectors that African Guyanese occupy are cause for their impoverishment and marginalization, due to the fact that wages are kept miserably low in those sectors. Some may argue, as your editorial did, that this is a consequence of structural adjustment programs, prescribed by international financial institutions, whose policies the government pursues. Regardless of this fact, African Guyanese are impacted disproportionately more, (excluding indigenous people) because of their occupation of those sectors that are hardest hit.

In addition, the Guyana's economy is based largely on small business economic activities that are controlled largely by a cultural collective, which discriminates in their employment practices; so that outside of the public service which offers some job security for African Guyanese, the private sector has an extremely narrow opening for them. The wage disparity between the public sector and the private sector is very stark, notwithstanding, the fact that the inability of the present administration to attract new investment to absorb the available labor force, is responsible for the large unemployment rate in Guyana and thus poverty, but the disproportionately large unemploy,emt rate among African Guyanese is partly because of the discriminatory practices employed in the private sector.

The economic marginalization of African Guyanese is also realized in the lending policies of local financial institutions. The Strict Collateralized loan policies preferred by banks keep African Guyanese from obtaining most loans thus contributing to their inability to sustain new and emerging economic ventures, and as a result keep them out of the growth process. It is not that African Guyanese are not represented in the economic sector - the pavements of Guyana are liter with micro enterprises owned by African Guyanese - it is more a question of the ability to access collateralized loans to encourage growth in those economic ventures.

The government's discrimination in terms of inequitable resource distribution is well known. In Guyana, budgetary allocation is constituency driven. Regions where PPP supporters live receive disproportionately larger budgetary allocations on a per capita basis than other regions of non-supporters. Because of this pattern and practice African Guyanese communities are increasingly sinking into severe economic depression and this is partly responsible for the increasing crime rate among African Guyanese youths, notwithstanding the drug activities that make these youths vulnerable. And it is public knowledge that the government supporters received more governmental contracts than any other group.

Contrary to Prof. Randy Persaud's belief and most other supporters of the government, whose first instinct is to fall into the pit of revisionist history, no serious African Guyanese academic has argued the case that Indian Guyanese are responsible for African Guyanese impoverishment. Prof. Persaud declaratively states that Indian Guyanese never enslaved Africans. I have no idea what this means, but African Guyanese marginalization is not an argument against Indian Guyanese as a Group. In fact I and others including Dr. Hinds have acknowledged the period of PNC authoritarian rule and mismanagement as responsible for the improvishment of a vast number of African Guyanese. So I agree with Dr. Persaud that Indian Guyanese do not owe African Guyanese anything. Dr. Persaud and many PPP sympathizers must learn that an indictment of the PPP regime is not by extension an indictment of Indian Guyanese as an ethnic group. Governments have a responsibility to ensure fair and equitable distribution measures. The Jagdeo administration has and continues to do nothing to address the situation of African Guyanese poverty and by their practice of exclusionary politics has marginalized African Guyanese and African Guyanese communities. Prof. Persuad by his own admission is a majoritarian and therefore is not concerned with promoting the politics of inclusion. I wonder what would be Dr. Persaud's position if the shoe was on the other foot. One of the traits of a good academic is social compassion and intellectual honesty.

No group in Guyana should be making claims of marginalization if the emphasis is on promoting social and economic cohesion and ethnic peace in Guyana.

"The state has a fundamental role to play in guaranteeing a degree of social and economic cohesion. It can change the way public money is spent to achieve greater redistribution and repair holes in the social fabric (i.e. exclusion). It can also promote social cohesion by focusing on delivering higher levels of social protection for all. Measures to foster participatory democracy are also a crucial part of strengthening social cohesion. It is essential that, alongside representative democracy, all groups are involved in decision-making." United Nations.2005 Human Development Report.

This is what we should all struggle for, not the domination of one ethnic group by the other, be it African, Indian Amerindian or Portuguese. Guyana desperately needs cohesion to move forward and the government must be held accountable for this.

A Third Force that Might Make a Difference?
by Alissa Trotz - Toronto

Posted May 16th. 2005

Over the last year, the Stabroek News has been reporting and speculating regularly on the political careers of Raphael Trotman and Khemraj Ramjattan, both of whom have been publicly taken to task for criticizing their respective parties, the PNC and PPP, and both of whom have been given a regular kind of "call and response" column in your newspapers. I believe it is fair to say that the Stabroek News has made no secret of its hope that they represent, at the very least, winds of change within their respective parties. Recently, one gets a distinct sense that the tempo has quickened, and that we might be on the verge of an announcement of a 'third force', a new political party with the potential to seriously challenge the current political gridlock. I refer in particular to Raphael Trotman's letter to the editor of April 25th 2005, followed by an interview with him and an editorial, carried in your May 1st and 5th editions. If it is true, this is extremely hopeful and exciting news. The time has come for something different and it has to start by inspiring people, wherever they are, into believing that Guyana's future genuinely belongs to everyone, and that they have a real stake in the outcome of the next election.

It seems clear that Raphael Trotman and Khemraj Ramjattan have finally recognized that the roots of the current crisis are buried deep in the hearts of the PPP and PNC, that there is no changing from within, that there is little hope of reaching out by these two parties the consequences of whose policies have been so devastating for so long. The multiracial, cross-class anti-colonial promise that the People's Progressive Party once represented gave way 50 years ago to the institutional legacy of the 1950s and 1960s: the PPP and PNC, two parties whose very existence today is guaranteed by racial entrenchment. The irony is that whatever our disagreements with them, many of the generation that has left us this legacy also had, at one point, the occasion and experience of working together for a common, explicitly stated purpose - Janet Jagan, Cheddi Jagan, Eusi Kwayana, Martin Carter, Rory Westmaas, Forbes Burnham and so many others. Not to put too fine a point on it, most of these stalwarts were in their twenties, early thirties when they committed their lives to the public stage. The generation of twenty-somethings in Guyana today has a very different relationship to politics, and part of the challenge is to change that.

This means changing what politics has come to mean, the one upmanship that the two main parties are involved in, sacrificing principled positions based on careful considerations to the zero-sum game. The most striking recent example I can think of was when the PNC commemorated the Chapman ferry tragedy in Linden and the PPP went to visit the graveside of Kowsilla. I am sorry, but don't tell me this had to do with respect for the dead, mourning the tragic events of the 1960s and ensuring they never happen again. It had to do with each side, in the most vulgar way possible, trying to take the limelight and the moral high ground of victimization by 'the other side'.

It means listening to each other, instead of boxing people in with labels and shutting down genuine dialogues. I can speak from personal experience. For example, on at least two public occasions I have been 'accused' of being WPA. I say 'accused' because this is usually all that is said, as if it is self-explanatory. This has always puzzled me, and it is also a very sad state of affairs because it means there is no need to engage what I have said on its own merits. All you have to do is label someone and that is enough to silence any possibility of a genuine conversation (For the record, whatever my political sympathies or affinities, I left Guyana before it was possible to cast a free vote. I am not, nor have I ever been a member of a political party. Ask yourself, why would I write this article if my aim was single-mindedly to get WPA votes? Yet why should this matter at all?) What does it say about us and where we have come, that we are so comfortable putting ourselves and others into neat little categories, as if Black or Indian or PPP, PNC, WPA, told you absolutely everything you needed to know about someone, all their hopes, their fears, their aspirations? Told you who to trust and who to suspect, who was good and who was bad? How did we ever reach this place where we have trapped our bodies, our hearts and minds in these small small boxes? How did we ever become so closed? What does it mean that these are the lessons we are passing on to the next generation? What might it take to change that?

I believe that most Guyanese in Guyana either do not vote at elections, or end up casting a safety/fear vote on their ballot paper. What I mean is this: the fact that most votes go to the PNC and PPP does not mean that these are the only popular parties and will be so for eternity. This is not to say there are no other parties contesting elections. Yet none of these, with the exception of the WPA for a period that was too brief and ended too tragically, has captured the imaginations of Guyanese, has directly and successfully confronted this albatross around our necks. I believe (I want to believe) that Guyanese people feel that they have no choice, that nothing has come along recently to break this vicious, stinking legacy, and that one's vote is therefore a vote for protection, for self-preservation. In Guyana these days that translates into a vote for race. It is a dread dread situation.

I believe that most Guyanese - wherever they are - are completely fed up with the situation and desperately want a change. In the last few days letters have been published in the Stabroek News from Guyanese at home and abroad, all anticipating some kind of announcement from the two R's (Raphael and Ramjattan), all offering support. There is definitely potential for something here and it has a history. The last time we saw this was in the 1970s, and here I am thinking of the example of Walter Rodney's tireless commitment to multi-racialism and the interests of the working people. This was not the search for political power in the way we have it today, the form that debases. It was a determination for which Walter Rodney paid the ultimate price, a period of hope that ended with a bomb on June 13, 1980. True, this is a different time today. There are no Walter Rodneys, but he left a lesson for those of us who care to listen, the absolute belief in the working people.

So, the hint of change in the air today is good news. Transforming the political culture will take a lot of courage and a lot of work. Raphael and Khemraj are mainly urban (Ramjattan undoubtedly has more support outside of Georgetown, possibly in the Corentyne area), do not have base support, need to build up infrastructure practically from scratch, and will most likely be even more vilified by the parties they have left in the weeks and months to come (this is something both parties are equally good at, it seems to me). The list goes on.

There is a great opportunity to tap into this energy, and it should not, indeed must not be missed. Once (even before) the excitement subsides, the first question for this potential new party has to be 'What and who are you for'? In his letter to the editor, Raphael himself noted that he is tired of the same old same old. He observed that while the big ones fight, the majority of Guyanese people are left to fend for themselves. And he ended by wanting a different future for his children, for the next generations who stand to inherit nothing but bitterness today.

If we follow this line of argument, then it seems to me that the reasons for breaking with politics as usual cannot be separated from the priorities that should top any agenda for a third force. That is to say, the racial divide that seems to consume us at elections helps to maintain a status quo which benefits the haves while making things worse for working people.

After almost two decades of structural adjustment policies, most Guyanese are no better off (I remember when people used to call the Economic Recovery Programme the 'Empty Rice Pot'. In fact this was one of the slogans PPP supporters also used to chant, but look at how smoothly the current administration, rhetoric notwithstanding, showed it could be trusted by international capital!). Income gaps continue to widen, education remains more or less irrelevant to getting a living wage, migration rates remain alarmingly high (according to a recent OECD report we now export the largest number of 'skilled' workers, over 80 percent, in the world).

Moreover, on whose backs are these programs carried out? The working poor, and among them women in particular, end up having to work more and more for less and less. For example, when the public hospitals don't have medicines or cannot care for people, it is women who take their sick and elderly home and look after them. When food prices skyrocket, it is women who end up hurting their heads hunting for cheaper food or trying to stretch the next meal. When we devalue our currency to make ourselves more attractive to foreign investors, people can afford even less (the thing about foreign investment, which Stabroek News has also named as important and requiring a 'stable political environment', is that no-one seems to think that we should demand minimum standards that protect workers' rights and the environment). Yet we are asked to have short-term memories, in five year cycles, or whenever we go with begging cup for more international funding. It is absolutely amazing - which patient, which company do you think would be prescribed the same remedy for twenty years when it was clear to everyone that it was doing no good at all? This is a bizarre example of the emperor's new clothes - he's standing in front of us, completely naked, lolo hanging down and all, and our 'leaders' pretend he is fully dressed! Are they frightened? Indifferent? Couldn't care less because they are not the ones personally paying the price?

This is why any new initiative, if it is not to continue exploiting and abusing those who pay the highest price and whose lives are continually structurally adjusted downwards, must begin by explicitly declaring itself on the side of alternatives to the policies that have resulted in the current economic situation. It must explicitly speak to and be on the side of working people. It must not be subservient to the powers that be (both local as well as international) that pay lip service to 'democracy', 'good governance' and 'economic freedom' while pushing for decisions that do not involve the majority of the Guyanese people and that are democratic only insofar as they spread the misery and poverty far and wide.

As a young-ish Guyanese woman (late thirties and counting) who lives abroad, distanced but certainly not detached from Guyana, I totally endorse the general thrust of the stories and letters to the Stabroek News that say it is high time for a third force. But let us also be absolutely clear. Any significant shift at the polls will depend on convincing Guyanese across race, young and old, women and men, interior, country and town, those who have never left and 'comebackies' who return to help make a difference, those who remain in the diaspora and help from there to fundraise and speak out in their various communities, that their involvement will be worth the long haul. People not stupid. The majority of Guyanese are working people, poor people, upon whose support and votes any breakthrough utterly depends. If this party is to be formed, and if it is not about using people to get to office (the sort of stupid, selfish, dog-eat-dog ambition that characterizes politics these days), then it must start and end by listening to, sharing with, learning from and building upon the energies, creativities and hopes of those who have sacrificed the most, and benefited the least. Only in this way will it ensure popular support. Only in this way will it sustain itself for the long struggle to find a different kind of tomorrow for all Guyanese.

Guyana should follow the example of South Africa
by Eric Phillips

Posted May 21st. 2004

As I sit here enjoying with the rest of South Africa the well deserved victory to host the 2010 Soccer World Cup, I am reminded and struck by the many similarities between South Africa and Guyana and the diametrically opposite directions these two countries have taken over the last ten years.

South Africa and Guyana are both recent democracies with multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious societies (six ethnic groups in Guyana, eleven in South Africa); both countries have histories of severe marginalisation (South Africa from centuries of colonisation and over 40 years of Apartheid; Guyana from 400 years of slavery, 132 years of colonisation and 38 years of neo colonization by the PNC and PPP ; large expatriate populations who have done extremely well overseas; rich in resources; and a Commonwealth heritage.

Yet, while South Africa is the darling of the Developing World with its leadership establishing the vision of an African Renaissance, the formation of the African Union and the New Partnership for African Development , Guyana even though it was instrumental in the formation of Caricom and the Non Aligned Movement, is on the verge of becoming a "failed state", a transhipment hub for "foods of death ", a divided society where preachers of hate proliferate because of real and perceived "racial injustice;" and non-visionary leadership at all levels of society nurturing and rewarding the daily corruption of the soul, mind, spirit and body.

Why are these two societies with so much in common so different in their future prospects and vision. I believe we only have to listen to Nelson Mandela, the "spirit of our humanity" who on Freedom Day, just a few weeks ago said:

"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".

Where are these good people of Guyana. Surely a population like ours, which on a per capita basis has produced more brilliant people than any other country in the developing world (my personal belief), surely we have many such people.

Let us however examine, in a few areas, why we are a "pitiful" society, a "vexing society". Take holidays for instance. Days that should be for joy, relaxation, circumspection. Days that should strengthen the human resolve to be "better" human beings. What have we done?

In South Africa , Freedom Day was celebrated on April 27 to unite the Nation. This is the equivalent to our Independence Day. The celebrations were magnificient and joyous, a celebration of the human spirit, especially since this day was also the commeration of 10 years of Democracy. FIFA was here to see multiculturalism, multiracialism and freedom at its best. I believe this assisted South Africa in winning the 2010 Soccer World Cup last Saturday.

In Guyana, we just celebrated Indian Arrival Day.

This holiday has been used to create further racial tension and distrust. Further disunity? Why? Africans who came here 203 years ahead of Indians, and under the worst conditions resulting in millions of lives lost during the Middle Passage, agreed to be "The first Holocaust" by many, Afro Guyanese again feel racially discriminated because there is and has been, no African Arrival Day.

Were the ruling Party not a predominantly Indian/ Hindu Party, would there be such a holiday as Indian Arrival Day.

I turn to the Ethnic Relations Commission's hearings on Kean Gibson's book The Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana

I am deeply troubled by the possible outcomes of this process. Will it result in the banning of the book? This seems to be a possible outcome.

What is the role of this Ethnic Relations Commission? Is this different from the role of the Human Rights Commission? My understanding from reading GINA, the Government Information Agency, is that the responsibility of the Ethnic Relations Commission includes the following:

1. Promote elimination of racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity

2. Uphold equal opportunity among people of differing racial groups;

3. Encourage good relations between different people of different racial backgrounds

4. Monitor the way the race relations law is functioning and make recommendations for its improvements

Given this mandate, I would want to guess that the Gibson book would fall under items 1 and 3. Maybe I am wrong.

But there are so many other issues the Commission could address, why this one.I have not read the book and cannot comment on its contents. I have never met and don't know the author. I however ponder why this book was written .Is it because Afro Guyanese feel totally marginalised and vilified?

Without stability, without economic growth, without the rule of law, there is nothing but marginalisation.

Reasonable people including the diplomatic community need to put a stop to this current politically motivated charade before the precedent it sets destroys the small remnants of democracy that exist. Fair and free elections.

After this book, what next? TV stations? Newspapers? Songs? Poems? Political Parties (not a bad idea)? Movies? I call upon the press to oppose this madness. This is a human rights issue. Nelson Mandela, a true prophet in his own right, on the 80th birthday of a White Afrikaneer , gave the following speech:

"The good book tells us that it is given to human beings to live for three score years and ten, or by reason of strength, four score years. Dr Beyers Naude has reached his four score years, proving to us yet again that he is a man of strength. His is a strength of body and of mind, and of that indomitable spirit that defied the evil of apartheid to make him a hero of our people. Oom Bey may your years still be long upon this earth.

"Beyers Naude became an outcast amongst the Afrikaners, amongst many whites and amongst the church that he loved. Such is the price that prophets are required to pay.

"Standing in the tradition of great Afrikaners and Patriots like Braam Fischer, Betty Du Toit and others, his life is a shining beacon to all South Africans - both black and white.

"It demonstrates what it means to rise above race, to be a true South African. If someone asks me what kind of a person a New South African should be, I will say: Take a look at Beyers and his wife Ilse.

"I want this evening, on behalf of South Africans, to thank Beyers and Ilse Naude for their sacrifice. And I want to use this opportunity to call on all Christians, not least members of the NG Kerk, to take note of the positive contribution of this Afrikaner prophet. The time of conflict in our land is over. We must embrace one another on the basis of justice and nurture the extended family to which we all belong.

"It was another great prophet, Martin Luther King, who once said: 'If we do not learn to live together we shall die together.' We have already made our decision in this regard. In last year's election, and the miraculous transition that followed, we decided that we are going to live together. The Church, the Mosque, the Temple and Synagogue, in short, all people of faith, can play their part.

"Oom Bey and Tannie Ilse paved the way during difficult years; and they remain in the company of our lodestars. Their force of example and message are simple: We must build one another and build together."

What is very surprising and quite extraordinary is the decision of the Ethnic Relations Commission to make their first public act this present "hearing".

I dearly hope this letter will be part of a process of helping Guyanese to "build one another and build together".

ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND ETHNIC CONFLICT
by Ravi Dev

Posted December 12th. 2002

The following article was first published on 26th September, 1993. We republish it today to continue the discussion on African Marginalisation.

Race vs Class

We have written extensively on this topic in earlier articles so we will simply summarize our argument. Firstly, in Guyana we were dragged in from different geographical/cultural blocs at different times and ended up living in separate segregated geographical niches. Compartmentalized by culture, time and space, ethnic identification remained paramount since a person's conception of self is formed to a large extent, through the socialization provided by his primary contacts, during his early years. In Guyana, these contacts are dominantly within a particular ethnic group. The young adult who enters the working world experiences much less intense - and thus less influential -class perspectives. Secondly, class is an open category from which one may hope to escape, while ethnicity is perceived as an almost inescapable fate. Thirdly, and most importantly, ethnic mobilization promises to deliver the same material benefits as class solidarity but in addition guarantees the psychic gratification of improved self-worth as one's groups rises in status. This is due to the direct link between an individual's self esteem and the categorisation of his group's worth. This is the central attraction of ethnic identification: the fact that one does not need any qualification to be part of an ethnic group, one only has to b oneself. In Guyana then, group comparisons are conducted between ethnic groups and for these reasons, among others, ethnic groups will always be attractive mobilization pools for political entrepreneurs. The potential social conflict in Guyana therefore is ethnic conflict.

Political mobilization

Politicians have long been blamed for the "racial" problem in Guyana. The answer is not so simple. Ethnic group comparison has been a feature of Guyana since its formation. To begin with, the Colonial ruling class was always an identifiable White ethnic group who defined themselves superior to the slaves who were Black Africans. The nascent African intelligentsia protested the undercutting of African bargaining power by indentureds, and Africans soon rioted against the Portuguese for perceived grievances perpetuated by them (1856 and 18880. In the modern era it was Indian incursions in the professions, business and the Civil Service that prompted a Coloured/Africans backlash against them. Anthropological survey data (R.T. Smith et.al. demonstrate African fears of Indian dominance long before the formation of the PNC in 1958. The PPP of 1950 was an ethnic coalition to accommodate such fears. Burnham was recruited because he was seen as more attractive to Africans than Ashton Chase. Politicians may have exploited and exacerbated the ethnic group comparison process but they certainly did not create it.

If the economic imperative were the most dominant, then one would expect that the most economically deprived individuals would be in the forefront to assert their class interests. However, our experience has demonstrated that it was the most educated and economically advanced African and Coloured middle class (taking a lead from the Portuguese) who precipitated the first major overt African-Indian ethnic conflict we have experienced in Guyana - the communal riots of 1962 -1964. While the middle class obviously had its class interests, it was more the political questions, such as their declining role in the power structure and cultural questions such as the despised "uncultured coolies" becoming ascendant, that galvanized them into action. The CIA's funds merely facilitated this predisposition.

Because of the history of Guyana, the different ethnic groups, to a large extent, occupy not only distinct geographical niches but distinct niches. The Amerindians, early on, were relegated to the interior forests where they continue to eke out a subsistence existence. The Africans, after the abolition of slavery, attempted to form an independent peasantry but were largely stymied in their efforts by the colonials who preferred them to form a cheap urban workforce. The Portuguese and Chinese Indentureds left the plantations and soon formed a petty retaining class, which quickly consolidated its position. The Coloured and "free Africans" had established themselves in the lower rungs of the professions and the civil service. The Indians largely remained in the rural areas employed in rice, sugar and other agricultural pursuits. Substantial numbers, however, shut out from the state sector because of the old boy network, went into petty retailing and the independent professions during the early decades of this century and were beginning to entrench themselves by 1960.

During the twenty one years of the Burnham dictatorship [1964-1985], there was a concerted PNC effort to enlarge the African middle class by giving them control of the eighty percent nationalized industry and in a vastly enlarged bureaucracy. There was a parallel effort to re-establish an independent African peasantry in the lower classs by implementing the cooperative vision of Eusi Kwayana But this failed partially on account of a lack of support on the part of Burnham who preferred to employ the lower class of Africans in his burgeoning disciplined force and bureaucracy.

In Guyana today, even though miniaturized through the depredation of the PNC, Indians are still overwhelmingly in agriculture, petty retailing and the independent professions while Africans continue to dominate the bureaucracy, the disciplined forces, mining, and the urban workforce. The Amerindians are still outside the "official" economy. It is still left to be seen whether the large cadre of African professional managers created by Burnham have imbibed the entrepreneurial spirit necessary to survive and prevail as independent businessmen since the bureaucracy and the nationalized sector has had to be downsized even under Burnham and Hoyte. This process will inevitably continue.

Any economic expansion, unless it improves all sectors of the economy equally [which is impossible] will consequently affect different ethnic groups differently. With the history of politicized ethnicity in Guyana, the ethnic group comparisons are inevitable even without the intervention of Messrs. Hoyte and Green. And unfortunately, these two gentlemen, their organizations and their supporters have no qualms about whipping up the fear of the Africans as they attempted to consolidate their traditional support base. All the apocalyptic rhetoric above "ethnic cleansing", arms purchase, and "cowboy justice", is merely to solidify in the mind of African Guyanese, that they are getting the short end of the stick compared with the Indians. Hoyte's strident racist statements have earned him no credit in the Indian community, so he couldn't possibly be courting the Indian vote. To fulfil his oath of not allowing Dr. Jagan to remain in power, he is clearly hoping that by emphasizing the relative deprivation of Africans and promising them they can have it all, they would follow him in resorting to extreme measures.

A Reply to the Minister of Finance and Ms. Smith
by Kenrick Hunte

Posted October 19th. 2002

Mr. Saisnarine Kowlessar, Minister of Finance, asserted in his letter that my analysis was “…extremely flawed and biased… severely deficient and incomplete…” These were some of his thoughts in response to my letter captioned, “Foreign debt has gone down largely due to write-offs, but domestic debt has quadrupled, SN l6.l0.2002”. I would also like to take this opportunity to respond to Ms. Nadine Smith, who proffered some remarks in her letter on the same subject, published at the same time as the Minister’s letter.

I was expecting a response to the published facts, obtained from the Bank of Guyana website on the economy during the period 1992 to 2001. But the Minister never supported his assertions. Instead, he promised that he would not engage in a rebuttal of specific points raised in the letter and at a suitable time in the future, he will address specific fundamental flaws in the arguments made by the letter-writer. He nevertheless made some other comments, along with those of Ms. Smith, which I thought needed a reply.

Denying that the foreign debt has not gone down largely due to write-offs and that the domestic debt has not quadrupled over the last ten years is to proclaim that the published accounts by the Bank of Guyana are wrong. Likewise, the denial of the generosity provided by the donor community is inconceivable. On both of these issues the evidence is clear. In fact, the very reason that the Minster can speak of mopping up excess liquidity is because the government deficit is financed by donor and domestic funds.

Table 1 below (Bank of Guyana Report (BOG), 2001 page 19) confirms this information and provides some other specific details of Government finances during the last three years.

First, recognize from the table that the balance on the current account declined from a surplus in 1999 of G$4.9 billion in 1999 to a deficit of G$2.0 billion in 2001. Second, note that the balance on the capital account was in a deficit position, moving from G$7.4 billion in 1999 to a higher deficit of G$10.7 billion in 2001.

Third, observe that capital receipts as a share of capital expenditure moved down from 40 percent in 1999 to 34 percent in 2001, indicating that further analysis is required to ascertain the financial and economic justification for these deficit-funded, capital projects. This point is made specifically for Ms. Smith, who should also examine the BOG report pages 19 to 25. More specifically, on page 23 of the BOG report it is stated that 92.5 percent of the domestic debt is in treasury bills (G$48.1 billion) and the remainder in debentures (G$3.9 billion). If the deficit on the capital account is G$10.7 billion and the total outstanding debentures is G$3.9 billion, then Ms. Smith can figure out the rest for herself. Lastly, the proceeds from sequential treasury auctions can be used to refinance government debt at lower interest rates. This has been the experience in Guyana, as observed in part from the falling interest costs on the national debt at time when the National debt itself is increasing.

Fourth, notice that the national debt jumped from G$2.4 billion in 1999 to G$12.8 billion in 2001, a five fold in crease in three years! This was financed by Government borrowing from the domestic market (G$8.1 billion) and with loans received from donors (G$7.8 billion), which led to the process known as mopping up excess liquidity. Is this fiscal prudence or fiscal profligacy?

On the subject of inflation, the Minister mentioned that the inflation rate was 2.6 percent in 2001. But low inflation by itself is meaningless, if there is high unemployment, no stock market as promised, no development bank as assured, low or negative growth rates, no new investment, and banks that are less inclined to lend to the private sector, due to high default risks. Is this good macroeconomic management?

Finally, if one were to rank the first three PPP/C Ministers of Finance during the period 1992-2001, Mr. Asgar Ally has undoubtedly outperformed his successors. But Mr. Minister, as the incumbent, you can invert the scale. This is your challenge.

Guyana Economy
by Kenrick Hunte

Posted August 28th. 2002

In an attempt to boost the performance of the PPP/C government, Mr. John Da Silva writes in a SN letter of August 20,2002 that “ We see the high levels of financial liquidity in the banking system, which means that more people have more money to put in the banks. The government makes available to the banks Treasury Bills which they are able to purchase and earn interest on, to put interest on your bank account”.

This statement is misleading and misrepresents the economic circumstances that underpin the Guyanese economy. At the present time, the economy is in a recession, as observed by falling output in agriculture, mining, industrial production and manufacturing. Unemployment is rising as private firms lay off workers, government downsize its public services and production (bauxite), private firms close (IEL) or are being boarded up for liquidation by commercial banks (rice, forestry, food processing). The current down turn in the economy is widespread and deep, as crime and poverty increase and jobs and income disappear.

The key reason why the government sells Treasury Bills to the banks is because government spending exceeds its income/ revenue and this spending must be financed and paid for by someone. So just like a household that spends more than its income and must borrow either savings or loans to pay its bills, government has to borrow to pay and cover its deficit. Of course, this is not a strange event as it happens in both developed and developing countries. What however is troubling for Guyana is the fact that the deficit is growing rapidly and it is distorting financial markets by triggering a downward spiral in interest rates paid to depositors, as private sector lending dries up and government gains monopoly control in loan markets.

According to the data published in the Annual Report of the Bank of Guyana (BOG), 2001, page 19, the government deficit, which amounted to G$2.4 billion in 1999, jumped markedly to G$12.9 billion by the end of 2001 as capital revenue normally collected from infrastructure projects declined significantly. External borrowing, from multilateral financial institutions, such as the IDB, financed some G$8.1 billion of the deficit in 2001 and the remainder was sourced from the domestic financial markets through the issue of Treasury Bills.

When these borrowed amounts are to be repaid, it is taxpayers who pay the bill. So if a citizen receives free infrastructure services from development projects (drainage and irrigation, new roads, water), but never pays for the service, this is a transfer of wealth from one group of Guyanese to another, and in fact they would have obtained a free ride on the system, violating the rules for equity and fairness in accessing public goods.

Another interesting feature of the Guyanese economy is that banks are not likely to take in more deposits unless they can keep lowering their deposit interest rates, largely as a result of their inability to identify and lend to viable private sector projects in a recession prone economy, with high loan default rates and significant provisioning for bad and doubtful debts. Banks would also not want to take in more deposits because the interest earnings they can make from buying treasury bills is now not enough to pay depositors, cover other expenses and make a profit. For example, data from BOG show that commercial banks paid small depositors an average of 6.49 percent in January 2002 for their deposits, while the earning banks made from buying treasury bills averaged 6.12 percent, indicating a loss of 0.37 percent for banks on such transactions. In June of 2002, the Treasury bill rate fell to 5.49 percent, while the deposit rate fell to 4.79, yielding a small profit margin of 0.70 percent for banks, but this might not be sufficient to cover the entire portfolio costs. The evidence also show that banks are not lending all of their excess reserves, for the risk of loan default is high, the enforcement of financial contracts through the legal system is slow and poor, and the lending rates on loans are inadequate, relative to the cost of making new loans. Commercial banks are not suited for lending long term, and the services of a development bank or an equivalent mechanism is a long forgotten government promise.

Stimulating private sector activity is critical at this time. More government spending, especially on bad projects that cost more than the budgeted amount and deliver fewer benefits than expected (a wharf that floated away; sections of seawall that the Atlantic devoured), are certainly not the way to go for Guyana. Treasury Bills issued in these circumstances are not only questionable, but send a worrying signal of poor fiscal policy under a system that is in severe stress.

Posted August 16th. 2002

Interview with Vincent Alexander
I advocate shared governance for a period of five to ten years

Vice chairman of the PNC Vincent Alexander has been nominated for the leadership position in the upcoming party congress. Here he gives some views on his strengths as a leader; the issue of violent protest; and his vision for the country.

SN: Why did you accept the nomination for party leader and could you tell us how the number of nominations you received compared to those for other candidates?
VA: I accepted the nomination because I had been approached over the years by a number of persons in and outside the party who feel I have what it takes to lead the party and the nation. So my acceptance was partly a response to that call. It's also because I have confidence that the PNC over the years has invested a lot in me and has given me the opportunity to develop into a person who could lead the party. So in that sense it is an opportunity to give back to both the party and the country where it is widely felt I have what it takes to be the leader. In terms of the pecking order the only person who received more nominations than I did was Mr Hoyte.

SN: Substantially more ?
VA: Significantly more. But no matter what comes out of this Congress my motivation will not come to an end. You could see a possibility in the very short term of myself becoming the leader of the PNC and the President of the country. I think my ideas, my experience my support of the party all lead to a bright future for myself and the party. Faith has been shown in me by my appointment to a number of committees including the Oversight Committee and the Constitutional Reform Committee.

SN: But you might be what they call in America "a policy wonk" slightly dull with little flair or charisma. Is there a place for charisma in politics?
VA: I don't think the issue with me is charisma. I think I have a fair amount. I think the further you go up the ladder the less you rely on charm .As you mature you are judged more by experience, policy positions. But from a young man I have been involved in leadership roles. Obviously there must have been some charisma to influence my selection. One may argue I have not occupied a lot of space in terms of media exposure. But since 1994 I have been Vice Chair of the party and have held other senior positions. I would shudder to think it was without the help of at least some charisma.

SN: With Mr Hoyte running, the result appears to be a foregone conclusion. Why then run and why do you think Mr Hoyte is running given that he intends to retire soon?
VA: I have accepted the nomination. What I will do will depend on what other candidates do. It has never been my inclination to contest against Mr Hoyte and with the number of nominations he has it is still not my inclination. But in politics one has to keep one's options open. I think there are two factors why Mr Hoyte is running. One is that in the country over the last few months the situation has deteriorated significantly and he may feel that there is unfinished work.

SN What might that be, dialogue or more protests?
VA: I would say in general terms to see the party through a significant period and to see the country through as far as the party can.

SN: Some would say it is a crisis of the PNC's making.
VA: When one looks at the joblessness, the corruption, the extra judicial killings all these have compounded on creating the current crisis and rather than being laid at the door of the PNC are the responsibility of the present government.

SN: Do you think that PNC protests some of which have resulted in violence have substantially changed government policy?
VA: Well I do not think they have substantially changed government policy but I would certainly say that a whole group of activities which is not necessarily just street protests but also protests in the media have resulted in the government being more cautious.

SN: So you are satisfied you chose the right course of action even though people have been hurt?
VA: We have had some unfortunate incidents but I don't know that social development is ever without price. Whilst I do not look forward to paying a high price the fact is in the long term these things add up to the general good of the society.

SN But terrible things have reportedly been done to Indo-Guyanese. It's hard to say that to somebody who's been mugged or beaten.
VA: I'd like to say two things. Lots of the terrible things that have been done have not been directly as part of protests. There may be instances where a protest is happening at Lamaha St and people are mugged at Stabroek Market. I want it to be clear that people who were not related to our mobilisation are involved in these activities and secondly for propaganda reasons many of these instances are exaggerated. So you have to view it in that context as well. You must also bear in mind that you might go to the doctor and you might not want to take an injection because it is painful. Certainly when it is taken there is that moment of pain but then there is that period of happiness thereafter. What I find is that even though these instances may be painful and costly, the accumulation of all these interactions and conflicts may result in a state of affairs which is far better than that which existed before.

SN But it is not is it ?There is political stalemate at the moment.
VA: Well I don't think we have met that culmination and as a leader one cannot be unaware of the social dynamics. I am not saying that these acts were intentional or planned but I do recognise that while I am pained from what has happened, in the long term they could be the catalysts which lead to the resolution of the country's problems. So there may be in retrospect an upside to all of this. There is of course right now a huge downside but it may be these events motivate people to get involved who may have stood on the sidelines previously .

SN: But the violence and in particular the July 3rd incident have to some extent tarnished the PNC's reputation have they not? Some would say the PNC wants power at any cost even if that means the disintegration of the country.
VA: Well I think that the issue of the PNC wanting power at any cost and the July 3rd incident are not related because certainly the PNC did not orchestrate the events of July 3rd. The question of their reputation being tarnished I don't think you can make such a broad remark. I certainly think there are some people who have distanced themselves from the PNC because of the perception of things and there are people who have been affected by the propaganda of the PPP. One must always be reminded that this is very subjective. It is a question of people's perceptions and while perception is reality it is not always the truth.

SN: Do you feel any responsibility for the events of July 3rd given that you helped to organise the march?
VA: I think one has to be cautious how that responsibility is interpreted. I know for a fact the PNC did not organise the activities which happened at the Office of the President .
So we are not responsible directly for what happened. But to the extent that we mobilised people for that day we have to take some responsibility. We cannot divorce ourselves from the incident . They were our supporters. But I need to put in the caveat . I don't think this nation properly understands what happened that day . There were a number of unknown factors that were at play. Take for example the two persons who were shot . Was there a real threat to the security of the Office of the President? Had those people started to withdraw? Were they in fact locked in and taking refuge from guns?

SN: So is the PNC now reviewing the whole idea of having marches or can we see more in the future?
VA: There has been a press release on the issue .We did say that protests are a legitimate form of political activity but we have to be extremely careful hereafter to have total control of any marches organised so we do not have a degeneration like what occurred on July 3rd. We have to ensure that we are in fact in charge. We have had many marches which are very peaceful and were demonstrative of how we think .

SN: But are those peaceful marches as effective? It seems the only time the government or civil society is prodded in to action is when stores are set alight or there is violence.
VA: We are not at this time advocates of violence...

SN: At this time ?
VA: We certainly will not advocate aggressive violence as a strategy. But certainly as a defensive strategy in the event of a total break down of law and order . We will not sit idly by and be attacked. So we are not at this time advocates of violence. We have therefore to operate in a context of peaceful protest. We do though intellectually recognise that incidents of violence ,not orchestrated nor intended could give impetus to a process. History has shown us that. But that does not mean we will go out there and orchestrate such actions.

SN: But is there then not a temptation to set up the atmosphere for violence and then pull away. You say you don't propose it but you see that violence can be effective..
VA: We are certainly not prepared to create or advocate a violent situation . Who died on that day? Are we going to set up a situation where those who are our comrades are killed ? It is really contradictory for us to be seen sending our comrades out to be killed . But that does not take away from the intellectual exercise one can go through where in retrospect one can say " You know we did not want that to happen. It happened and having happened there was an impetus thereafter." So sometimes some of these persons involved in violence may turn out to be martyrs.

SN: Can you say where the anger, the lawlessness in Buxton might be coming from?
VA: The situation in Buxton has not suddenly dropped from the heaven .There have to be social and economic conditions for this. We have to look at the real causes rather than trying to plaster over symptoms.

SN: There are social problems all over the country. It does not mean everyone is digging up the road. Amerindians have been historically marginalized but they are not rising up in the Rupununi.
VA: Let's put it this way . The entire country has problems. But the entire country has not witnessed Black Clothes police coming in the middle of the night and shooting people. The entire country has not witnessed what happened in Berbice when BASS killed people. In both places you have had eruptions. These are catalysts which lead to social unrest and you have to take this into account.

SN: Surely dialogue is the only solution. Why not start talking today ?
VA: It is inevitable that people have to talk. We can't run away from that. But I think we are at the junction where we have to create the understanding of what should come out of dialogue . The PPP has used the dialogue process to do their own thing and not to move the nation forward . Dialogue will not work if we don't have favourable conditions.
SN Isn't that why you need the dialogue because you don't have favourable conditions ? VA: Well the dialogue in itself requires favourable conditions . You can't come to the table with different intentions and call it meaningful . We have to have dialogue about intent before any discussion of substance .

SN: What do you want before you can go back ?
VA First of all the government must be committed to implementation. While the dialogue has been on pause the government has had quite some time to show good faith. Rather than implement they spend their time talking about what they have supposed to have implemented. Instead they could have taken the opportunity to show these guys (the PNC) up as wasting time while "here we are blazing the trail of implementation." But they have not done that . Implementation is also on pause .

SN: Is the PNC doomed to be a party in opposition and how will you attract Indo Guyanese voters given the perception your party bears responsibility for protests where Indo Guyanese have been attacked .
VA: No I don't think we are doomed to be in opposition .The evidence is there that the party has always gotten over and above what would be its demographic base. This shows we have been able to attract across the divide and will continue to do so. I think the PNC stands a better chance if people were to view things from a standpoint of issues and I think in our own strategy we should emphasise issues. We have no benefits from emphasising race because if we were to do that we would be appealing to a minority ethnic group. I think given our own track record of economic activities and the poor track record of the PPP we are at a stage where people are coming to realize that they can all suffer even though a party that they voted for is in government and this will give us an opportunity to get more votes across the board. But I wish to say however that one of the reasons why the PPP has gotten as many votes is due to the situation where Indo Guyanese feel intimidated if they don't vote for the PPP .And the way in which our votes are counted and the fact that one could identify how someone has voted makes it difficult for Indo Guyanese to make that bold step.

SN: Isn't it the memory of the PNC's time in government why they don't vote for you?
VA: There may be an element of that but there are a lot of Indo Guyanese who would say that a lot of what is happening today would not have happened under the PNC. There are a lot of Indo Guyanese who sought prosperity and had greater job security under the PNC. There are good memories and the more and more the country deteriorates more and more Guyanese are beginning to see that this government cannot be compared to the PNC. This government makes the PNC look good on the question of corruption. So there are good memories and they are creating an environment for even better memories. However the issue is not one of the PNC winning. It's more an issue of the political culture in the country and we need one where people of all races would feel comfortable and still feel they belong here and have a chance to develop themselves. So for me the more critical question is one of the manner in which we administer public affairs rather than who wins the election. It is more about how one ethnic group responds when one party wins. If one were to check my writings as far back as 1991 one would see that the overriding issue is one of political culture. Our greater problem is one of governance and not the issue of who won and lost.

SN: How important is the development of local government to Guyana's future?
VA: It is very critical as a path forward, because a lot of our problems ethnic or otherwise have to do with this high centralisation of power. I think we have a good local government system but I think we need to be very clear about the administration of power through the various levels from the central down to the village. We may be able to create a situation where we find what regions and villages can do and we don't have this interference; that people can feel comfortable in their villages determining their development. Of course we need to define who should do what but not on the basis of power but more efficiency. We also have to make sure the resources are available and that they are not distributed on the whim of the central government but rather on the needs of the various bodies. Also what is the capacity to do certain work? What is the level of poverty? These are factors in determining how much is allocated very objectively to those local areas. If this is done it will help to reduce tensions and people in their little enclaves will feel more comfortable and they can focus on their own development rather than chafing under a system of political patronage. This can only come about when local government bodies are more autonomous, and even when the central government is involved in certain areas there should be an atmosphere of participation.

SN: What is your view on the issue of shared governance?
VA: First of all I see the devolution of power as a form of shared governance in the sense that you have a large number of diverse groups involved in governance from executive down to the village council.
Having said that, in the context of the crisis our country faces I can also see shared governance at the central level playing a role if only as an interim arrangement for five to ten years. We can then get away from the adversarial politics where we can sit collectively and work out a shared vision for the country; to bring order to the manner in which we administer the affairs of the country; a period to implement the basics. We need a period of stability which can lay the foundation on which we can go forward.
Though it may not be a permanent solution to our problems it could be a period of transition from the crisis we are presently in to a more stable platform. So I do advocate at this time such a view.

SN: Wishful thinking ? Considering the PPP is not exactly warm to such an idea?
VA: Not necessarily . What has been absent in the past is the involvement of civil society and in the final analysis their presence should impact significantly on how the parties behave . Ultimately it is to the civil society parties have to turn for their votes .So there is some evidence that civil society is becoming more and more active in creating an environment which would see political parties shifting their position .

SN: What are the long term concerns for Guyana and how as a leader would you address these?
VA: I think there are a few things: ethnic insecurity, economic development, good governance and forming a vision for Guyana.
The nation has to put the ethnic question squarely on the agenda. For a very long time we have denied ourselves that . We have a real ethnic problem and many pretend it does not exist. We have to address its origins and resolve it once and for all. The school system plays a critical role. Two years ago I wrote two articles for the Stabroek News on the pedagogy of mutual respect advocating that young people be exposed to the customs and beliefs of each other. There is too much demonising of culture and religions. We have to use the various government policies. For example housing: the ethnic problem could be addressed by creating communities where diverse groups live together . You can learn to understand the guy living across the fence and then you relate to other races according to experience rather than the stereotypes you are given .

SN: One people one nation one destiny .Is that still a valid motto for a country so divided?
VA: Mottos are motivational devices. Undoubtedly we have one destiny and are one nation. In terms of one people, if one defines a nation in terms of language, culture and values one can see the emergence of something of that sort. I don't know if it would be perfect. We have varying religions and with that come varying values. Still it is a good motto that can serve a tremendous purpose.
Economic development is of course critical .Once the economy is buoyant automatically there is a reduction in the tension as there is more to share around.
We need to create the environment for local and foreign investment because we recognise that the private sector is the engine of growth. But we also see a role for a local approach to development, where individuals and groups can become involved in collective enterprises. We also need a broad vision defining whether we should go the route of an agro- processing based economy, or mineral based ,a role for tourism. We have to bring order to governance in the country.
There has to be a standard which says these are the values of the administration of public affairs. Obviously these things will take some doing and so it is in that regard I advocate the idea of shared governance for a period of five to ten years where we can get away form adversarial politics and get involved in collectively charting a course for the country.

Procurement and Public Trust
by Kenrick Hunte

Posted June 1st. 2002

One of the tents of good governance is the condition that those who have been elected to serve the people must present unimpeachable public information in the public domain. Any such elected or appointed representative of the people who fails to maintain this standard, diminishes his office and should resign forthwith.

I raise this issue mainly because of a statement made in Parliament by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Kowlessar, in an exchange on the passage of the long delayed procurement legislation (SN 5-30-2002). According to the report, the Minister said, “… the haste (that is the passage of the legislation) had nothing to do with commitments to the multilateral funding agencies (World Bank, IMF).”

Having read the Guyana Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, I am of the view that the Minister has, more than likely, misinformed the Parliament and the People of Guyana, for this is what is stated in the Guyana Policy and Performance Matrix, 2002–2005 page 2, under the Regulatory and Institutional Framework:

Strategies and Measures: Reforming tender and procurement.

Required Action: Establish Public Procurement Commission; Lay amended tender and procurement bill in Parliament; Implement provisions of amended tender and procurement bill.

Monitoring Indicators: Members of Commission appointed and Secretariat established; Monitorable indicators set on tenders and procurement; Evaluation criteria for tenders published.

Target Dates: (January 2002; June 2002; September 2002).

Source of Financing: GOG/ E-HIPC.

It is highly unlikely that the Finance Minister would not know that the procurement legislation is tied to the HIPC poverty program. In fact, the procurement legislation is a condition precedent, necessary for the approval of the Guyana HIPC program by the World Bank /IMF. Thus the “haste” in Parliament and the circumvention of the Auditor General and other professional bodies is tied to Government’s tardiness, the target dates and the source of financing from the multilateral lenders. These lenders, namely, The World Bank, IMF and other donors, who are likely to finance most of this year’s ‘biggest-ever budget and deficit of G$15.2 billion’, will protect their institutions and the many tax payers they represent. They cannot be caught again as in the Essequibo road, the floating Charity wharf, or the BK east coast water disaster. Furthermore, their loans cannot be washed away by corrupt practices, for they are held accountable; and we, the people of Guyana, deserve no less of our elected representatives.

Incidentally, another condition required before HIPC approval is that the government enhance the macroeconomic framework. In this regard, some of the condition precedents in this area have not been achieved by the agreed deadline dates. So the standard excuse will apply: the government had nothing to do with the noncompliance and delay; instead, it is the fault of the opposition who are only bent on mischief.

Finally, some questions: Will the professional bodies join with the Auditor General and have this matter resolved in the interest of Guyana? I hope so! Also, I hope they write the World Bank, IMF, IDB and other donors, informing them that the process is still not transparent or inclusive and to proceed will deny the establishment of an important learning curve of public accountability and public trust. And so, will the multilateral agencies approve the HIPC, despite the concerns on procurement? I hope not! And lastly, will the President fire the Minister? Nah!!

Where is the outrage, Guyana?
by Kenrick Hunte

Posted May 9th. 2002

I recently read the Guyana Review, April 2002, in which it captured part of the ‘numbness and decay’ now common in Guyanese society, as collective responsibility dies and government retreats to a distant corner.

First, I was shocked after reading the following news item (page 9): “Undertakers at the Le Repentir are appealing to the relatives of missing persons to come forward and assist in identifying bodies that have been left there… in a decomposed state … At least five boxes … could be seen lying outside…”. My question is: What if no one comes to identify these remains, will this situation continue indefinitely? Where is the outrage, Guyana? Where is the collective responsibility? Certainly, the Town Council, the Ministry of Health and the many religious organization in Guyana cannot allow this ‘crack’ to widen.

Second, I sympathize with the Deputy Fire Chief, Carlyle Washington, who said, “we had water in our tank but, because it was a large fire, the water finished.” While this is understood, it would be comforting to know when the Georgetown Sewage and Water Commissioners would be given the funding and a program to fix the many fire hydrants that are not working in the city, where it is reported that 50 percent of them are non functional. Collective responsibility dictates that Insurance Companies, homeowners, the Town Council and central government must solve this problem. A special bond and tax program to correct this fire hazard can be implemented. Otherwise, fire tenders will continue to be useless, if they cannot be refilled from the water mains on any street.

Finally, in the Guyana Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (GPRSP), it is recorded that the illiteracy rate in Guyana is 1.4 percent (page ii). This, in other words, implies that the literacy rate in Guyana is 98.6 percent; and together with a primary school enrollment of 96 percent, the World Bank would have to exclude Guyana from additional debt relief assistance for this type of program. But contrast this report with the statement by the Minister of Education, who said, “ many people were leaving primary schools functionally illiterate and a significant number of them were unable to carry out simple functions”. Is the Minister correct or is it the GPRSP? Where is the outrage, Guyana?