First, I would like to express my appreciation for the numerous positive comments I received in response to my last column titled ‘Pain Management’, particularly those from medical professionals.

This week, I wish to return thematically to an issue I had previously addressed, possibly more than once, in this column – that of the need for greater objectivity in reporting on matters of national importance. I had previously made the point that there are certain issues which transcend partisan interests, which, by their very nature, demand objectivity in public discourse, something that very rarely happens here.

The following excerpt from the article captures the essentials of the report:

“Earlier this month, the World Economic Outlook, which presents the IMF’s analysis and projections of economic development, projected Guyana’s economy would grow by 2.604 percent in 2009 and by 3.448 percent in 2010. The Article IV report stated that despite external shocks and social pressures, macroeconomic stability was preserved in 2008, which the Fund attributed to the administration for actively implementing prudent fiscal and monetary policies. It is in this regard, the Directors commended the authorities’ commitment to further entrench macroeconomic stability, strengthen the financial system and implement structural reforms. According to the report, the direct spillovers from the global financial crisis on the banking system have been limited so far. It noted that the banks remain well capitalized and profitable, and the financial system is sound.”

In the current global economy, the phrase ‘the financial system is sound’ is wishful thinking for even some of the richest countries, a diagnosis that is for many months, or perhaps years, from becoming applicable to their situation. Such a definitive positive statement coming from one of the major international financial institutions is the exact sort of thing which not only demands highlighting, but also demands objectivity in when being highlighted. The persons who are responsible for managing the economic and financial affairs of the country must be complemented.

I could bet however that this report will be studiously avoided by those who have been the most vociferous critics of the present administration, particularly on economic policy. Only one of several normally critical columns, written by the pseudonymous Peeping Tom, shows any sort of critical fairness particularly with regard to matters of national importance.

Complementary to this is that not only will the acknowledgement of the positive be missing, but there is the likelihood that any attempt by the administration to present this information as illustrative of an overall positive image of Guyana on the international scene will be met with opposition by some who claim to represent the public. Contrast this with another country, Barbados being an excellent example, where there is bi-partisan recognition that a positive position on any economic or developmental index bodes well for the country as a whole, arguably even engendering a further rise. I am not a journalist by profession, and I am only involved in the media in an indirect, tangential way. However, I believe that there needs to be objectivity as well as balance.

Finally, with regard to the use of information of that nature being presented within the IMF report, I believe that – the non-objectivity of the garden variety political pundit aside – not enough is being done to make this information relevant to the public at large. The average man and woman in the street need to see the effective management of the economy as beneficial to them, having an impact for example on the fact that food prices have generally been decreasing over the past year. Also, the implications of this sort of positive diagnosis by the IMF have to be made clear to those in the business community, in order for them to feel at ease in investing in the local economy, the same applies to those willing to pump some foreign direct investment into Guyana. Economy growth, particularly in the information age, thrives on investor and consumer confidence, and is boosted particularly by the sort of glowing report Guyana has received.

The onus of the delivery of this information lies chiefly with those whose very policies resulted in the positive assessment, i.e., government. While there is no doubt an established machinery exists within the state media, perhaps a greater focus is necessary to break down the information presented even further, making the linkages between macro-economic prudence and bread and butter concerns. With regard to the lack of objectivity that seems endemic within the general, not just explicitly political, analysis in Guyana, this would be a way of closing the door on purely partisan assessments in that it forces the pundits to contend with the truth instead of simply omitting it at their convenience.

Finally, I would like to signal my satisfaction with the recent passage of several pieces of legislation within the National Assembly, most notably the legislation on drunk driving and the commitment to table legislation which seeks to ensure that Local Government elections are held this year.