By Ruel Johnson, Cultural Policy Advisor

Twenty years ago, I found myself at a curious personal juncture. While I had drifted towards the Arts stream when I was compelled to make a choice in fourth form, any sort of stellar achievement I had previously earned was curiously enough in the area of sports; track and field in particular. At some point in sixth form, I gradually decided that I would be this thing called a writer and leave my athletics behind. In the years to follow, I would be relatively fortunate in that quest–Christmas Annual, Cropper Foundation Workshop, Guyana Prize for Literature. But as quickly as I rose, I just as quickly found myself stagnated.
Only years later would it occur to me, during research consultancy with an initiative called the UWI-CARICOM Project, that I did not exist in an environment in which true growth was possible for a promising young artist and what was missing in Guyana, and much of the region, was policy to encourage and stimulate creative industry development. This year makes the 30th year since the formation of the Regional Cultural Committee for example and there remains no central support mechanism for cultural policy development in CARICOM.
As my research both widened and deepened, with particular focus on Guyana, I would come upon the one critical factor that was stymieing cultural policy development – the deliberate absence of political will. I can give some examples of where that absence previously made itself manifest, all taking place around the year 2013. During his presentation at the UN High Level Thematic Debate on Culture and Development, held in June of that year, then Minister of Culture, Dr. Frank Anthony offered the following insight:
“As we examine the merits of reflecting this theme in the post 2015 developmental agenda, I take this opportunity to underscore the high importance that the Government of Guyana places on culture as an integral part of the development of the Guyanese society. It is a natural reflection of the diversity of our peoples and a testimony of the individual strengths that have combined to realize a proud and progressive society”

Anthony’s speech was so thematically sound that the UN News and Media site did an article on it and has it available for download. However, the reality on the ground in Guyana was that, even with Anthony at the time the longest serving cabinet member in a single senior ministerial post, nothing in the then Government of Guyana’s actions reflected those words. For example, the key recommendation at the time for meaningfully addressing the issue of culture in development – according to CARICOM, UNESCO and UNASUR – was the creation and implementation of national cultural policies developed out of a consultative process.
At the time Anthony was making the speech at the UN, he had been sitting for five years upon a Draft National Cultural Policy created by a very small group of people, and which has never been made publically available. Indeed, the document was so secretive that the Ministry’s strategy for 2014-2017 called for the creation of a national cultural policy; the drafters of said strategy clearly unaware that a draft did in fact exist.
At the time Anthony would also have been making the speech, a critical deadline with regard to demonstrating tangible commitments to the ideals expressed in that speech was about to expire and would eventually. It had to do with the principle framework under which the United Nations was treating cultural policy development, both nationally and internationally, the UNESCO 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expression. Having acceded to the Convention in 2009, Guyana was obligated to produce its first four-year documentation of measures taken in line with the Convention – what is called a Quadrennial Periodic Report (QPR) – by the end of June of 2013, the same month Anthony was addressing the UN on culture. Guyana failed to submit that report, significantly holding back technical and financial aid that a successful QPR submission would have entitled us to.
Last June, I was assigned to give a preliminary report on behalf of the Government of Guyana, before our scheduled submission this year. Realising that this would just have been our first report, instead of our second, I queried the absence of a 2013 report from a senior cultural bureaucrat installed under the former political administration. I received no answer. When I consulted my research and investigation files conducted while the previous political administration was in power, there was correspondence from the UN reminding Guyana of its obligations. It was therefore a conscious and deliberate default by Anthony.

These are just two examples, out of literally dozens, where there was a deliberate absence of political will in establishing a national cultural policy as a basic tool for mainstreaming culture in development. This administration is objectively different. A national cultural policy was championed by no one less than the President, HE David Granger himself in the National Assembly, as early as six months before Anthony’s speech at the UN, when he noted, in arguing for a resolution on a national cultural policy as then Leader of the Opposition, that:
“Guyana needs a cultural policy in order to explain that our heritage is fundamental to our identity as a nation and to our success as a society. That policy must be based on an understanding that an integrative nation fosters an inclusive society and a confident citizenry. We need a national policy that recognises the important positive part that culture and heritage play in national integration. It is because culture does have a role to play that serious consideration should be given to promulgating a policy rather than pursuing the present higgledy-piggledy approach. No one benefits from the absence of a national youth policy; no one benefits from the absence of a national sports policy and no one will benefit from the absence of a national cultural policy.”
Although this resolution did not receive the support of(the) then government, his commitment to a national cultural policy was carried into the APNU+AFC’s manifesto for the 2015 elections, and found concrete expression in the appointment of yours truly as Advisor on Cultural Policy in June of that year.
For the past two years, as the officer responsible for policy development, there have been absolutely no barriers established in the Ministry of Education, either by Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine or the subject Minister for Culture, Nicolette Henry. With the former, himself no stranger to cultural policy having been engaged by Jamaica as expert in their own efforts over a decade ago, I’ve always had the sort of grand ideas guidance that could only come from someone his caliber.

With regard to the latter, an anecdote would sum up her attitude to the work of cultural policy development and best practice measures. Just after the elections, I saw an ad announcing Guyana’s participation in Carifesta and wrote a letter saying that it cannot be business as usual with regard to the usual lack of transparency in the selection of Carifesta delegations. Although then not employed by the Ministry, I was immediately called in and appointed as a member of the planning committee and while the process was not perfect, for the first time in years, Guyana’s contingent membership for Carifesta was decided on the basis of audition and application. This weekend, I sat with the members of the literary arts contingent, no one above their mid-twenties, all who went through a process in which they submitted applications which were independently judged and selections made.
In contrast, fourteen years ago, having just won the Guyana Prize for Literature, I joined the staff of the Guyana Chronicle around April of 2003. One of the first things I did was to protest political interference in the editorial department. Carifesta was held in Suriname later that year, and Guyana fielded a contingent under the leadership of then Minister of Culture, Gail Teixeira – I was noticeably not on the contingent. It would take years for me to connect my internal protest at Chronicle with what effectively became a Carifesta blacklist throughout the life of the former administration.
Why this is important to note in the context of this piece is that not only is political will critical to the development and implementation of cultural policy, but also political will (as was the case for far too long) can also be deliberately, viciously hostile to not only cultural policy in its broadest sense but in fostering related things like transparency in cultural support, freedom of expression, and the rights of the creative individual. The environment with regard to the development of young writers has changed clearly from 2003. Indeed, one of the writers selected for this year’s Carifesta is a columnist, writing in the state paper, who frequently criticizes government policy in her columns. In brief, as a precise result of a policy directive on transparency and accountability by Minister Nicolette Henry, young creative talents finally have a fair shot at representing their country on the basis of merit.
All this change notwithstanding, because of how decisively previous political will had dwarfed cultural policy development in Guyana, the political will that currently exists at the level of senior government is not enough as is. In June of 2013, when Anthony was delivering his empty rhetoric in front of the United Nations, Guyana’s failure in its submission of its first scheduled QPR under the 2005 Convention was a result of zero political will in furthering culture. Four years later, the reality is that the danger of us passing a second deadline is imminent.

If this happens, the fault is mine. When, due to the absence of a national cultural policy, I started the Janus Cultural Policy Initiative in June of 2014, with the generous support of the Prince Claus Fund for Culture in Development, one of the principal action areas I developed was a strategy for advocacy, both in the public arena and in the political realm. I’ve spent the past two years interacting with citizens stakeholders convincing them of the need for their involvement in the creation, implementation and assessment a national cultural policy and the measures it would engender. Where I became complacent was in reinforcing in the minds of the senor political leadership the urgency of a national cultural policy, both in an off itself, as well as in keeping with deadlines like the QPR submission.
With a week now before the final deadline, and with tangibly greater political will and with many examples of advances in the cultural environment, we may very well still be at the same place in 2013 because of my failure to lobby and convince senior government outside of the Ministers of Education that far swifter action needs to be taken, particularly at the level of cabinet, in supporting the development of the infrastructure needed for efficient and timely cultural policy development and implementation. That sort of support, that enhanced, enlightened political will, is the critical element in ensuring that we do not fail our obligations to the international community, miss opportunities for much needed technical and financial assistance, and hence continue to fail our cultural legacy and our creative future.