GUYANA'S OPPOSITION LEADER
HOEING HARD POLITICAL ROW
A post-PNCR congress analysis by RICKEY SINGH
THIS PAST weekend in Guyana, Robert Corbin, a 62-year-old lawyer, was thanking God and party loyalists for re-electing him leader of the People's National Congress Reform (PNCR), the country's major parliamentary opposition. 

But his challengers for leadership and others who want to see him replaced at the helm were singing from a different hymn sheet with claims of electoral irregularities and concerns over the party's future, having suffered defeat at four successive general elections since 1992.

The official announcement declared him a convincing victor with more than double the votes polled by his lone challenger, Winston Murray (also a lawyer), after four other nominated contestants had withdrawn from the race earlier in the week in a determined bid to ensure his defeat. 

The staunch backers of Murray, former chairman of the party who was profiled as a suitable comprise by the other nominated challengers to Corbin, had included Dr Richard Van West-Charles, a former Health Minister and son-in-law of the late President Forbes Burnham.

However, when the official results were declared--amid claims of falsification of membership applications, misuse of delegates badges and protests over electoral procedures--Corbin had polled 614 votes to Murray's 223 of the total 1,175 seated delegates who chose to cast their ballots. 

Murray did not conceal his disappointment, noting with characteristic calm and political maturity, as reported in the media, that he accepted the results, given the margin of Corbin's declared victory and despite the flawed electoral process and procedural irregularities.

Since he remains a PNCR parliamentarian, he would not rush into making a decision at this stage about his personal future with the PNCR or in the country's party politics, he said.

Nevertheless, Van West-Charles was not to be counted among other nominated challengers for the leadership who were still keeping their silence at the time of writing.

He maintains his position during the campaign for leadership change and has catalogued cases of what he claims to be "systematic centralised falsification" of membership applications in the compilation of the register of eligible voting delegates for last week's (August 21-22) 16th Biennial Congress. 

The convenor of the accreditation committee for the congress, Lance Carberry, has dismissed all allegations of improprieties in arrangements for the election of the party's leader and others who comprise the Central Executive Committee (CEC).

Challenges ahead  
The reality, as third-term leader Corbin would be quite aware, even though reluctant to publicly express it, is that the PNCR's serious internal conflicts have not ended with his retention of the leadership and the election of his loyalists to positions of chairman and vice-chairmen.

Indeed, the divisions may well have been exacerbated by occurrences at the 16th Biennial Congress to further affect the PNCR's quest to defeat the People's Progressive Party at new presidential and parliamentary elections due by August 2011.

Corbin's immediate challenge, therefore, must be to heal wounds and unite the disparate factions, the sooner the better, even as the governing PPP focuses on coming local government elections, likely in early 2010, and  plans ahead to remain in government for a fifth consecutive term at the 2011 national poll..

It is going to be a very hard row for him to hoe, and though his opponents and detractors would understandably withhold credits, Corbin has demonstrated his capacity for political survival that also includes the art of winning controversial elections.

He has accumulated much experience in party and national politics since he first became a parliamentarian in 1973 and rose through the leadership ranks of his party.

Over the years, he has held various party positions---vice-chairman, general secretary, chairman---and finally leader, since 2003, with the passing of former Executive President and PNCR leader Hugh Desmond Hoyte. 

His identification with divisive and controversial 'street politics' in opposition to administrations of the PPP would certainly not be among his pluses for those across the national political divide who are anxious for the politics of consultation and reconciliation that requires matured responses on the part of both the governing and parliamentary opposition parties.

TOO BIG TO FAIL – THE FUTURE OF SUGAR
By Ralph Ramkarran
As a prelude to the privatisation of the sugar industry, the Government of President Desmond Hoyte invited Booker Tate to manage it in the hope of arresting its catastrophic decline during the years of the PNC administration. Then as now the sugar industry employed about 20,000 people and provided a substantial portion of Guyana’s GDP and foreign exchange earnings. The plot to privatise, for which no mandate was sought or given at the 1985 general elections, unravelled when the PPP announced that it will not be bound by any such agreement. As it happened, the PPP won the elections, freely and fairly held for the first time since 1968.

The professional management of Booker Tate in the 1990s, the quality of which began to decline in the 2000s, saw a dramatic increase in wages and conditions and increased production. With a guaranteed market in Europe and guaranteed prices, a promising future for sugar once again appeared on the horizon. But dark clouds were beginning to gather. The cost of production remained unsustainably high because of low productivity, aging equipment, soil quality, labour issues and other problems. The growth of globalisation was beginning to threaten sugar’s protected regime. A decision had to be taken about the future of sugar.

At the opening of the Skeldon Sugar Factory, President Jagdeo said that in considering the options, the Government realised that sugar was too big to fail. The number of families relying on the industry was too large, its contribution to the economy too great. The President said that the option of privatisation was ruled out and the only alternative was investment by the State. He pointed out that in the era of neo-liberalism it was tremendously difficult to convince the World Bank to support such a project. Finally, however, the Government prevailed and, the President argued, its wisdom of protecting large industries has been vindicated by the recent policies of industralised countries in protecting industries ‘too big to fail.’ Above all, sugar could be profitable. The Skeldon Factory was designed to produce sugar at US12 cents a pound. The world price is now US22 cents a pound. This might not be sustained over time. But hopefully, the bulk of Guyana’s sugar sold outside of its traditional markets will be sold in added value form at far higher prices than the world market.

Sugar generally, and the Skeldon Sugar Factory in particular, face enormous challenges. The President mentioned several of them. These include the restoration of management capacity and efficiency, the deployment of innovative initiatives to increase the supply of cane, industrial stability, the development of new products with added value, establishment of downstream industries and more. Sugar, he said, must pay its way and contribute to the national treasury. The opening of the Skeldon Sugar Factory gives hope that despite the daunting challenges, sugar is on its way to even greater heights.

Inevitably, comparison will be made with the Government’s approach to the bauxite industry with the argument that it was not given the same treatment. Opponents refer to the government’s investment in sugar and suggest that its failure to do likewise with bauxite is evidence of unequal treatment and worse, discrimination because of ethnicity. However, unlike sugar, bauxite gradually became unprofitable as the ore on the surface became depleted. The cost of extracting ore lower down in the ground was prohibitive and increased the cost of production to an unsustainable level. At the same time, Chinese ore of less quality and lower prices became more attractive and later took significant market share from Guyana. These problems surfaced much earlier than sugar - from about 1980.

Much effort and resources were poured into the bauxite industry since then. Restoration effort with World Bank assistance began in 1983 and continued in 1990 but did not work. Minproc, a private manager recommended privatisation in 1993. These were all undertaken during the PNC administration. It was not until much later, and reluctantly, under a PPP administration, that privatisation took place. This only occurred after it became clear that the only alternative was complete closure of the bauxite industry.

Not only did workers receive their pensions, the fund being supplemented by more than $3 billion by Government to make up contributions which had been unpaid by the company, but for more than a decade the Government subsidized Linden by about $500 million a year while pouring in resources through such programmes as LEAP. The question was not whether bauxite was too big to fail. It was whether bauxite could have been saved as a state owned enterprise. The answer was no.

The Parrot
Jumbie seeing ghosts?
The Parrot was deeply engrossed in a vocal activity whilst in the washing chamber, the bathroom. Ah ha, I can imagine what your thoughts are. I wasn’t doing that. I was singing whilst bathing; well, trying to. In many cases, fellow Parrots will so exercise their vocal prowess in an attempt to mitigate boredom. This vocal mitigation is often enhanced in the said chamber and further still, when being the only occupant in the place of abode at the time. Well, there are many such times for me; one of which I would never forget.

Whilst in the midst of cleansing my plumage which was accompanied by high-decibel vocalisation, I heard strange noises; strange loud noises; strange noises I have only heard whilst viewing a scary movie. I immediately muted my oral exposition and stopped the flow of water. Petrified, I listened. The noises were repeated. I shivered. I thought a jumbie had entered. I am scared of jumbies. My plumage contracted. Water rapidly flowed from my outer body. I was all alone and “afrightened”. I called out and no one answered. The noises ceased. I called again. The passing minutes seemed like light years.

After about five “light years” and much calling I mustered the courage to follow the direction of the sounds. I reached, eventually with a cross in my hand. I geared my mind for an encounter with a jumbie, or ghost. What I saw brought relief immediately. My fright was replaced by anger. Here was my neighbour’s big ugly tom-cat comfortably lapping my milk on my breakfast table. This bowl of milk was covered with a basin which was in turn covered with a big pot. These are precautionary measures even though the cat never drank my milk. Other Parrots in the neighbourhood warned about this cat. I was now a victim of his lapping.

I realised that the first sound was that of the pot crashing to the concrete floor and the second was that of the basin suffering a similar fate. On seeing me, the cat, which became much more petrified than I, scampered. Much later I realised his scampering was twofold; my presence and my unaware nudeness. He may not have recovered from such a sight. But, who cares. I was relieved. This incident caused me to ponder on how some people can actually interact with jumbie and show no inclination of fear. Is either they born with “caal” or them is jumbie themselves. Jumbie ain’t supposed to frighten jumbie, right? This jumbie kind of “interaction” was seemingly evident during the protest outside the Rum JHAATan’s office downtown Georgetown last week.

The protesters of concerned citizen stood up “placarding” peacefully outside this “Key” man’s office. Up come some brazen rePORTERS who proceeded to interview the standing citizens with placards. All kinds of questions were asked. Who you is? Where you is from? Who is you representing? Who leading you? Even, who funding you was asked. Brazen eh? Never is meh born life I see reporters soliciting comments from protesters. The Place of CONgress organised plenty protests since 1997. I never hear these rePORTERS soliciting any comments from the marchers.

Since Simels started to talk from a cage….sorry, from the court dock in NY, Uncle Bob, who won re-election last week at the Place of CONgress and Ruff-fella, Uncle Bob’s “Key” alliance, started to protest. Up to yesterday five placard bearers were outside Uncle Bharrat’s office “placarding”. How come these same rePORTERS ain’t asking dem questions? How come Go-Mo from CaPITal news and his friends from the DePress ASSociation ain’t asking this set of protesters anything? Why only one set of protesters getting asked plenty nuff questions? Why the silence? I ain’t hearing no noise. De water turn off? De vocal activity (question asking) done? A jumbie was spotted? Knock, knock. Say something Gordon. Why only ask one set of protesters getting questioned?

To throw salt pun crapaud back, this same set of rePORTERS after talking to the protesters outside the RumJHATTan’s office, reported that the same protesters were phantoms! Phantom is a fancy word fuh jumbie. It also means ghost. So how come de livin’ people turn phantom in the TV news and in the newspaper? When the interviewing was going on, the rePORTERS conducting it didn’t look frighten like I was in the washing chamber. By dem own words and pictures, the protesters in question are phantoms; jumbies; ghosts. The rePORTERS ain’t born wid “caal”.

The only “caal” they get is when Uncle Bob and the DePress ASSociation call dem for instructions on how to “buse” up Uncle Bharrat. So if dem ain’t born wid call, the only reason they could be talking to “jumbies” and don’t be “afrightened”, is that they themselves have to be ghosts! So it was ghosts talking to jumbies. I gone I don’t like jumbies. I going and get some garlic to put on meh door and some laxative to put in the milk to teach the big ugly tom cat a lesson. I can now exercise my vocals “unafrightened” whilst washing in the chamber in my birth suit. No peeking. Squawk! Squawk!

Lula’s call to Obama on U.S. troop build-up in Colombia
By Phil Pascal
WHEN the BBC News item on Saturday August 22 2009 said that “Brazil” had telephoned President Barack Obama about the proposed enlarged presence of US troops in Colombia, I was at first perplexed, not to say amazed - but kept hoping the report was accurate and based on fact.

Here was a President, in what used to be in the Cold War era included as part of the US-“backyard”, speaking by telephone to the President of the US and telling him that he (Lula of Brazil) is disturbed by the “climate of unease” being created by US military actions in Latin America. As a result, the President of Brazil had therefore “called on US President Barack Obama to meet South American leaders to calm fears about the US military presence in Colombia.” 

For the record let me share with readers exactly what the BBC reported:

`Brazil’s Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said President Lula told Obama it was “very important” that he attend a South American Summit in Argentina starting next Friday. The Unasur meeting has been specifically called to address the Colombian bases issue.’

That President Lula’s concern was so explicitly conveyed and made public, has significance deserving of due attention for various reasons. At least three of these can be considered in the context of (a) the USA’s reactivation of “spheres of influence Cold War policies”; (b) “the drugs war umbrella for political suppression of Latin America’s drift to the left” and (c) the “deepening of Latin America’s global thrust”.

Only a few brief comments are offered here and the significance for Guyana noted.

From Bush’s `neglect’ to Obama’s `alliances’
The years of “neglect” of Latin America as a priority arena for US foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration have become worrisome both to the Pentagon and of course, the US oil magnates, like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron. The latter suffered nationalization as part of the growing impact and appeal by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in advancing his Bolivarian Socialist Revolution of the 21st Century.

The failed coup in 2002 against Chavez and with credentials as a democratically elected leader, courting friendship with the Russian Federation for sophisticated weaponry and oil agreements with Iran, are clearly too much for Washington to stomach. Add to Chavez’ “revolution”, the emergence of Bolivia under Morales and Ecuador with Correa along with Ortega in Nicaragua, and the pot was boiling in favour of the growing appeal by left-leaning populist programmes in the US’s traditional “sphere of influence”.

This had to be disturbing to the Washington establishment and with the NAFTA colleague of Mexico increasingly an embarrassment to the US in the failing “war on drugs”, one would be naïve to think that even under an Obama administration, reversal of the leftward trend and declining influence in the US “back yard” would remain handshakes at the Summit of the Americas and the smiling reception by Obama of Chavez’ gift of a copy of the Open Veins of Latin America. That widely read study detailed the historical rape and exploitation of Latin America’s resources by US imperialism.

For the US to boost friends, shore up its “allies” or slow down the “leftist drift” in the hemisphere has become a cardinal feature of Obama’s policy, whether it be by his visit to Mexico to join forces on the war on drugs or by mixed signals on the Honduras coup, now more than six weeks without unambiguous resolve to have the elected President restored to office.

As during the previous ideological war against “communism” in the Cold War era of some 40 years until the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union, the “Americas” as a US sphere of influence has to be “recaptured” and protected in the current era of the war on drugs and terrorism. This requires additional support to Mexico and Colombia, by intensifying the war with drug gangs in the former and the additional supply of equipment and access for American troops to military bases in Colombia.

It is this move by the Colombia-US agreement that has heightened concerns by many in South America.

One might also note that collaborative efforts with selected and sympathetic allies through military, diplomatic and financial support have been accompanied by continuing depiction of who are “bad’ guys, like Chavez, Correa and Morales, while others like Bachelet of Chile and Lula of Brazil are seen as “moderates”.

So the announcement of US bases and military personnel for Colombia was orchestrated by Secretary of State Hilary Rodham-Clinton as essential for the war on drugs, since Ecuador had refused to extend an agreement allowing US troops access to a military base there.

Faced by the disquiet by Latin American leaders, Colombia’s President Uribe set out on a tour to selected friendly countries attempting to give assurance that the expanded US military presence on its soil would not be a threat to other countries in South America.

Clearly, this has not gone down well, even with “moderate” Lula who has called to “invite, persuade, urge Obama to a face to face meeting of UNASUR in Argentina, expected to be held on Friday.

The changing geopolitics  
The position taken by Brazil demonstrates that the old Cold War strategy of “selecting” who are to be trusted and sympathetic to US designs of what is good and desirable for the South American continent is no longer relevant. This is indeed a “wake-up” call to Obama and his policy advisers that the geopolitics of the 21st century are changing rapidly and profoundly the relations between countries of this “hemisphere”.

The Cold War positions of “spheres of influence” are being buried and attempting to resurrect them will meet open resistance. South American leaders will not allow themselves to revert to being subservient bystanders in what the US came to believe is its “back yard”.

Where Guyana is concerned, one would expect its participation in the UNASUR meeting and this would be consistent with its overall watchful eye of not favouring any escalation of militarisation on the Continent.

Moreover, the deepening solidarity with all its South American neighbours is a longstanding principled position of Guyana. This is aimed not only to advance peace, security and trade relations for the development of its economy and multicultural society but also as a key component of the role Guyana plays on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) as the “gateway” for the mutually beneficial relations in trade, investment, culture and education by CARICOM and the nations of South America.

One can certainly be encouraged that in the larger scheme of “hemispheric” political changes Guyana’s fortunes of geography and its widely known progressive commitment to integrationist policies will stand it in good stead in these days, when “the times they are a changing”. (PHIL PASCAL is an overseas-based Management Consultant & Social Commentator)

President Jagdeo – “Transformation of Economic Culture Needed in Guyana”
By Dr Randy Persaud
President Bharrat Jagdeo has called for a transformation of the economic culture of Guyana. The President outlined the major elements of this transformation at two major events recently. The first was at the 19th GAWU Delegates Congress, and the second at ‘Conversations on the Future, both held at the Guyana International Conference Centre at Liliendaal.

To help us understand ‘where the President is coming from’ let us start with an examination of the more abstract concept of economic culture. According to Michael E. Porter, (Professor of Business Administration at Harvard University), “[e]conomic culture is defined as the beliefs, attitudes, and values that bear on the economic activities of individuals, organisations, and other institutions” (Porter in Culture Matters, ed. by Harrison and Huntington, 2000, p. 15).

Porter also notes that “[t]reatments of the role of culture in economic prosperity tend to focus on generic cultural attributes that are deemed desirable, such as hard work, initiative, belief in the value of education, as well as factors drawn from macroeconomics, such as a propensity to save and invest” (Porter, p. 15).

Drawing on the French Annales School of historiography we may use a temporal methodology to operationalise the categories – attitudes, beliefs, and values (see Fernand Braudel’s On History).

In this instance we take it that attitudes are short term in nature and can be changed more rapidly. Attitude then is more of a behavioural tendency. Beliefs are more deeply embedded in the cultural configuration, and exist in what Braudel once called the level of conjuncture, or medium term. Beliefs are harder to change, and obviously take much longer. Values are more structural in nature, and much more difficult to change. Change proceeds at a snail’s pace, if not ‘pushed’.

The President called for change in attitudes, beliefs, and values. His remarks were targeted at workers, management, and entrepreneurs.

The attitude to work was discussed at the ‘Conversation on the Future’. It was raised by Chairman of the Private Sector Commission, Captain Gerry Gouveia, who pointed to a productivity gap. Mr. Gouveia noted that it is difficult to get a full day’s work in Guyana, while the same workers give it their all when they go elsewhere. FITUG President Mr. Carvil Duncan suggested that workers must be given a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. President Jagdeo underlined the point that for Guyana to move forward, we need to improve productivity so that our products are competitive in world markets. Other commentators noted that focus, discipline, dedication, and a positive attitude, though intangible, are in fact critical to increased productivity. The basic point of increased productivity is, of course, lower unit cost, which translates into lower consumer prices, and thus greater market competitiveness.

President Jagdeo underlined the productivity issue again in his speech at the Commissioning of the Skeldon Sugar Factory. He insisted that while the factory itself is a great accomplishment in the history of Guyana, real success will only come about when we produce more sugar. Both management and the general work force must do their part in this regard. The President was clear about the type of transformation in attitude that Guyana needs. He thus insisted that those who perform should be rewarded; those who do not should be ‘held accountable’.

Although President Jagdeo did not say so in plain words, it must have been obvious to all that it is no longer sufficient to blame multinational corporations, bad weather, and the usual ‘suspects’ for below-par performance. Put differently, the President did not shy away from linking rewards to performance.

Commonsensical though it may seem, there are many critics of this ‘rewards-performance regime’. Some labour activists might see it as ‘neoliberal’. Is it though?

President Jagdeo was equally clear about cultural transformation of entrepreneurship in Guyana. He characterised the business culture in the country as ‘risk-averse’, and noted that this culture of ‘security’ is acting as a fetter on business dynamism.

The President also encouraged the business sector to abandon what he characterised as “the culture of shame”. What Mr. Jagdeo had in mind here was the propensity for some in the business community to feel less worthy if a business venture did not succeed. He noted that in the more developed world it is not unusual for many new businesses to fail. Business men and women in that part of the world however, do not attach any ‘shame’ to a failed venture. We need to change this culture by understanding that a key part to business success is actually accepting a level of risk. No risk; no reward.

The President addressed another aspect of Guyana’s economic development culture that is of fundamental importance. He ‘challenged’ Guyanese to think about development as our own responsibility. In this regard, domestic capital formation should be at the cutting edge of national economic development. Jagdeo insisted that while there is ample room for foreign investments, we need to break the dependency mentality of only looking ‘outwards’.

Among other things, the President noted that education is a crucial vehicle for change. Two aspects of education were dealt with by the President. Firstly, Mr. Jagdeo insisted that in addition to improved delivery of and performance in education, there must be greater emphasis on the appropriate education. Education, productivity, and development should all be linked.

Secondly, the President made it clear that the education sector needs to produce more Guyanese with entrepreneurial skills. He also noted that the diffusion of entrepreneurial skills throughout the country is one of the surest ways of building opportunities and opening doors across ethnic and class lines. Further still, a new ‘breed’ of young entrepreneurs is more likely to hasten the needed changes in our economic culture.

The President’s call for fundamental and urgent change in Guyana’s economic culture is not mere rhetoric. This transformation is about the future of the country, and if we do not change, Guyana will not move forward. Professor Porter, quoted earlier, put it this way – “The question is, will a country voluntarily embrace a productive economic culture by changing the old beliefs, attitudes, and values that are impeding prosperity, or will the change eventually be forced upon it? (Porter, 27). He goes on to state that “[i]t has become a question of when and how fast a country’s economic culture will change, rather than whether it will change” (Porter 27).

STANDARDS CORNER
THE ROLE OF STANDARDS IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS (Part 1)
In a competitive marketplace, customer satisfaction determines the market share for each supplier, and ultimately it determines which suppliers of products or services survive. Any marketplace with multiple suppliers favours the customer, and customers demand quality products and services that meet acceptable standards.

For a company to have a competitive advantage over other companies that offer similar products or services and compete for the same set of prospective customers, it must be capable of replicating the products or services it offers to some prescribed ‘standard’ or measurement yardstick.

There are thousands upon thousands of standards that are invisible to most consumers and their vast number alone suggests that the world needs standards, hence the need for industries to implement standards in their operations in order to be successful. When used by industry, standards can work to:

* Promote market efficiency and expansion;

* Foster international trade;

* Encourage competition and lower barriers to market entry;

* Diffuse new technologies and

* Protect consumers against unsafe or substandard products.

But standards on the other hand can be exploited, for they can be used by unscrupulous manufactures to:

* Raise transaction costs and barriers to trade;

* Constrain innovation and entrench inferior technologies; and

* Hinder the development of interoperable systems.

From the perspective of individual firms, poor or indeterminate standards can raise their costs, compromise their quality, and constrain their market position.

Globalisations have made international standardisation the focus for many countries, and its pursuit has been taken up in Regional and World Trade Agreements. The most significant of these agreements, perhaps is the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, which is part of the World Trade Organisation Treaty signed in 1994. Among other things, this agreement – known as the TBT Agreement – commits the Governments of more than 130 nations to give preference to international standards as a basis for their technical regulations. In addition, the agreement encourages national and regional standards developers, to use international standards in their activities.

The foreseeable future will move more and more towards international markets because of new market opportunities being created by the radical changes that are taking place on the world political scene such as: The dissolution of the Soviet Union, Deregulation and privatisation of formerly nationalised industries are occurring at a rapid pace throughout Latin America and parts of Asia and Africa, and China, which has gradually lessened its political and economic restrictions. Conformance to international standards will be an important step in the success for all organisations.

Look out for part two next week.

For further information, please contact GNBS on telephone numbers: 219-0062, 219-0064, 219-0065 and 219-0067. You can also check the Bureau’s e-mail at gnbs@networksgy.com