– reasons given for the veto of several big projects are, at best, intellectually suspect

SINCE the new political dispensation of the Guyana’s parliament after the 2011 general elections we have witnessed, on several occasions, the combined Opposition using its one seat majority to block funding to a number of projects, cutting the national budget and in a general manner stymieing the development thrust of the Government. The objective, it would seem, is to flex political muscle to the detriment of all Guyanese. Alliance For Change (AFC) Leader Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan pronounced emphatically before the budget was even tabled that the cuts are going to be more ‘constructive’, thus admitting that the cuts before were far from ‘constructive’ and their objective is to cut, by any means necessary.
It is not that cutting the national budget will take you to hell, but saying ‘no’ to something should usually be followed by a good alternative, as the latter would indicate commitment to national development and equally some visionary prowess.
But in our case the Opposition has cut the budget, veto the projects and have failed to offer alternatives. It is as if they’re saying “you can’t eat the bread on your table but…we don’t have a meal to offer”. This demonstration of intellectual bankruptcy is nothing new to the Guyanese people, as it is reminiscent of the notorious PNC era where a chronic drought of transformational ideas persisted.
Amongst the projects vetoed for political vindictiveness, (economic sabotage may be more accurate) are the Amaila Falls Hydro project, the CJIA expansion, the Aviation plan and the Marriott. The reasons given for the veto are, at best, intellectually suspect. The Opposition has pronounced that the Hydroelectric project would run dry at some point. However, a hydroelectric plant was never meant to produce electricity all year round: Basic research would show only a small percentage of hydro falls can actually achieve this.
The CJIA expansion and the Marriott followed a similar logic, whereby the Opposition argues that the CJIA expansion is pointless, given the limited international traffic. The same logic is extended to the Marriott; stop the project because the other hotels aren’t performing well. This is a sad case of an inherent inability to distinguish between cause and effect or synergy. Arguably an explanation for the limited international traffic is the state of modernity of the current Airport infrastructure. You would never be able to attract state-of-the-art carriers with a dated infrastructure. A large new airport is necessary for these carriers to transit Guyana. These carriers are not landing in Guyana because we don’t have a modern airport, not the other way around.
The Marriott follows a similar flawed thinking, one that completely ignores the fact that to attract the tourists we desire a modern facility. However, while flawed logic was used to shaft these projects, no reasons was given as to why the Aviation plan was vetoed, so one has to assume, given the modus operandi of the political Opposition, that there is no logic behind that cutting.
It is the vision of the incumbent Government that sees Guyana as an Aviation hub; a nation placed between Central, Latin and South America, The Caribbean and North America and would be able to provide aviation services that are unique. It is the vision of the incumbent that saw Guyana as a tourist destination, with the resources to offer something different. The other nations sell white sand, blue waters and clear sky as their biggest assets, but the world has seen that ten times over. Guyana can tap into eco-tourism and capture a massive market. It is the vision of the incumbent that realised Guyana’s manufacturing prowess, the intermediate savannahs provide abundant land for production and Hydroelectricity would provide cheap renewable electricity to complete the manufacturing process.
Would we be seeing a Berbice River Bridge and the Providence national stadium if the now political Opposition had possessed this one seat majority? Or even more frightening to contemplate, were they in power? The sane mind thinks not.
We all know what the vision of the incumbent is, but can we say the same for the combined Opposition?

STEPHEN KISSOON