THE Opposition party APNU-AFC recently released Manifesto of its policy positions is certainly verbose, contradictory and lacks coherence. However, the tone of its content is the least of its problems, as the content, replete with contradictions, is clearly intended to obfuscate more than illuminate its take on solving the country’s sociopolitical problems.

At least four major contradictions emerge at first reading and dissecting each one briefly underscores the Manifesto’s overall problematic nature.

The first contradiction concerns financing APNU-AFC’s proposed incentives, subsidies and free benefits, or, ‘goodies.’ The critical issue is the lack of an articulated plan about how to generate and earn the revenue needed to fund these programmes. There is clarity about offering disbursements but virtually nothing about financing the generous budget that would be needed.

In fact, the only specific initiative mentioned was lowering the Value Added Tax (VAT). This is, in simplest terms, a recipe for disaster. Government income is mostly generated from taxation, borrowing and foreign direct investment sources. No doubt, a significant problem emerges if one decides to eliminate the primary revenue generator, which is the VAT, and then offers no plan to replace it.

The second contradiction points to a potential violation of international rules, which would limit market access and promote trade distortion. In the Manifesto’s foreign policies provisions there is talk about “re-energising” and “commitment” to regional integration processes (CSME, Caricom Single Market and Economy) as well as a commitment to international multilateral organisations, but then the party then adds that only locally assembled computers will be purchased by the Government.

The proposed laptop buyback programme would violate the internationally recognised principle of National Treatment (that is, equal treatment of both imported and locally produce goods and services). Similarly, the proposed local content requirement of a minimum number of indigenous labour participation – where one would put a quantum, percentage or proportion of inputs (for example, labour material, parts) as derived from the domestic economy – would encourage new Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) which directly contravene the spirit of the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on TRIMs, formally adopted in 1995.

The third contradiction points to the absence of a long-term development plan in the Manifesto. The document is curiously revealing because on the one hand we are told they have a plan that would result in significant economic growth but within the document they also tell us that the APNU-AFC does not have a long-term national development plan nor a coordinated tax policy (except to cut the VAT and increase the income tax threshold). It is clear from reading the Manifesto that the party’s only plan is a promise to develop a plan only if it is elected to run the government.

This raises a legitimate question: What were they doing in Opposition all along? These plans should have already been developed for Guyana’s developing economy. Why would one wait until after elections to host consultations and develop plans, especially when they are intended to benefit the whole of the country’s populace?

The fourth contradiction calls into question the party’s so-called genuine commitment on Public Private Partnerships (PPP). The Manifesto calls for the reduction of the Berbice Bridge toll on an investment that truly represents a PPP. This brings into question the party’s sincerity regarding its stated commitment to PPP projects. The only way one can start price controls in PPP projects is to do so arbitrarily and forcefully, hardly productive or advisable for a country’s economy that is seeking to compete in today’s global marketplace.

CLINTON URLING