Perspectives
‘Political self-interest, not the people’s interests, is marring the political and developmental life of this nation; the constant humbug of unscrupulous demands for changes in electoral rules and systems; the relentless and selfish haggling over shared governance; the predictable election writs; unyielding bickering over constitutional reform; media distortions; the race card; and yes! The street protests over the years, among others, are what Guyanese have come to expect from those who live off politics’ POLITICAL self-interest, not the people’s interests, is marring the political and developmental life of this nation; the constant humbug of unscrupulous demands for changes in electoral rules and systems; the relentless and selfish haggling over shared governance; the predictable election writs; unyielding bickering over constitutional reform; media distortions; the race card; and yes! The street protests over the years, among others, are what Guyanese have come to expect from those who live off politics.

And then, we have political commentators from the dailies and television who brandish an opportunistic brand of self-interest. The commentators would invariably admonish the PPP/C government for ‘messing up’ on democracy and freedom, and tell the government how bad things are because Guyana, according to their reasoning, has an ‘elected dictatorship’ within a ‘general autocracy’ framework, among other evils.

‘The scramble for power is an ugly sight in Guyana. Everything else takes second place in this insufferable ‘power’ stampede; creating in its scurrilous path a charade of unscrupulous demands. But the people have the power to end this political nuisance; a political tragedy in some sense’
But applications of concepts like ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ do not only tell us how things are functioning, good or bad, but also how they should work. Clearly then, these commentators’ approach is faulty, in that they reason solely on how bad things are, without addressing substantively the ‘how’ part of the equation to make things better; in terms of what the right political system is; and their prescriptions for the right political system, generally, are mere sloganeering statements; they have to do better than that. And just as well, they should know that the correct way of coming up with the right political system is not always achievable through reason alone; for that also could be partisan reasoning.

Consider a sample of these commentators’ opinions: Guyana is an elected dictatorship; the Guyana Government has a mendicant behaviour; Guyana is an ethnocracy; the Guyana government is an authoritarian regime; the Guyana government has a record of human rights violations, and so on.

And clearly, these commentators’ opinions could favour the interests of particular groups, like for instance, bureaucrats, aristocrats, middle-class entrepreneurs, workers, and opportunistic ideologues. But then, how do we know which is the correct opinion? And how do we know that we do not have a partisan group projecting this opinion?

According to Mannheim, the ideas coming out of such groups would generally come from intellectuals, who would then promote their ideas to groups most sympathetic to them. And so, such intellectuals could affix themselves to any group that favours their ideas; they would be like ‘free-floating’ people; a powerful ingredient for the onset of political opportunism and partisan behaviour.

Perhaps, we should put this theory to the test and see if any political commentator from the dailies/TV, whose opinion may be at variance with that of the Government, would accept a political offer from this Administration. And these commentators, including their political sidekicks (and indeed, the offer should go to them too), who almost always claim that this Government is not good for Guyana, producing little development for this country. Well, is this the case?

Think for a moment about the PPP/C Administration’s record since 1992, amid an unenviable legacy of economic failures and the absence of fundamental human rights. Here is a small sample of achievements:

Guyana is free; President’s powers reduced; Opposition participation through parliamentary sectoral committees, parliamentary management committee, standing committee on constitutional reform; oversight committee, Public Accounts Committee, constitutional commissions, the President’s consultation with Leader of the Opposition on some appointments; Berbice River Bridge; Takatu Bridge; Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) now US$71 million for 1993 through 2005, compared to US$2.6 million between 1982 and 1992; sustained macroeconomic stability through reduced inflation now 8%, compared to 101% in 1991; reduced interest rates, stable exchange rate, consistently reduced budget and balance of payments deficits; increased per capita income now US$900 compared to US$231 in 1991; increased disposable incomes evidenced through the importation of 85,000 motor cars, etc.; increased minimum wage now US$124 compared to US$22 in 1991; increased production in all agricultural sectors; growing service industries; upgrading of CJIA and Ogle airports; housing boom – 70,000 house lots, 35,000 titles, 7% mortgage interest rate; 85% access to water compared to 40% in 1992; increased CXC performance now 80%, compared to 47% in 1991; university education expanded into Berbice; more trained teachers, now 56% compared to 35% in 1991; greater secondary school enrolment now 72% compared to 35% in 1991; 84 new schools built; health physical infrastructures rebuilt – new hospitals at New Amsterdam, Georgetown, and Kamarang; high immunization rates among children now 95% compared to 65% in 1991; Infant Mortality Rate now 48 per 1,000 compared to 120 per 1,000 in 1991; maternal mortality rate now 11 per 1,000 compared to 34 per 1,000 in 1991; Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV/AIDS now with 73 sites; the 1951 Amerindian Act revised; 50 Amerindian communities obtained titles and demarcation.

Do these achievements not matter? And are they not part of sustainable development? How credible are these political commentators’ opinions from the dailies/TV and the opinions of those politicians who live off politics. Look! We can argue that there should be more development, but simultaneously, we need to acknowledge that the content in the preceding BOX is a living reality.

I have no doubt that this country, as part of its political mix, has a community of irrationality, inclusive of politicians, who live off politics, political commentators from the dailies/TV, and the hate literati; they present their thinking as substantive, and arrogantly attempt to influence the masses of ordinary Guyanese to subordinate themselves to their thinking; undoubtedly, an insult to the integrity of all Guyanese.

And it is this community, not the ordinary people, who sees this country as having miniscule development, governed by an authoritarian regime, and burdened with an ethnocracy. The scramble for power is an ugly sight in Guyana. Everything else takes second place in this insufferable ‘power’ stampede; creating in its scurrilous path a charade of unscrupulous demands. But the people have the power to end this political nuisance, a political tragedy in some sense.