Don’t get me wrong, there is much to criticise. The accompanying question, however, is – what have you done lately to build your community?

The basic tenet of these criticisms is that government should do more.

While that may be true, we must also recognise that government cannot and must not do everything. What then is the alternative? Simply put, people should participate and contribute more to society at the local level.

Let us examine this proposition in detail.

One useful way to proceed is by examining the available literature on governance and civic participation.

There is in fact an extensive scholarly literature the subject of SOCIAL CAPITAL that is directly relevant.

This is not the place to review that literature. Instead, let us work with some of the basic elements of social capital. According to the philosopher Francis Fukuyama “social capital is … an informal norm that promotes cooperation between two or more individuals” (Fukuyama 1999).

This norm was famously expressed in John F. Kennedy’s dictum – “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Three elements of social capital should be identified for the current discussion. The first point regards RECIPROCITY, which basically means that cooperation produces benefits to all the parties engaged in acts of civic participation.

The second factor concerns SUBSIDIARITY – which in simple language means that decisions executed at the local level can produce greater efficiencies.

The third factor concerns TRUST. Trust is a social institution that fosters greater legitimacy regarding decision taken at the local level.

Robert Putnam, one of the experts on social capital, has observed that societies with high stocks of ‘social capital are more likely to develop at the economic, political, and cultural levels.

Among other things Putnam states that high levels of civic engagement, (i.e. social capital) can produce three specific benefits to societies. These are:

1. “The norms and networks of civic engagement [can] powerfully affect the performance of representative government” (Putnam, 1995).

2. “[C]ivic engagement and social connectedness [can] produce …better schools, faster economic development, lower crime…” (Putnam, 1995).

3. [N]etworks of civic engagement foster sturdy norms of generalized reciprocity and the emergence of social trust (Putnam, 1995).

Social capital in Guyana is at a very low level. While there are indeed quite a lot of civic organisations, these take the form of ‘tertiary associations’.

Tertiary associations are vertically organized and usually specialize in service delivery, rather than civic participation per se. These associations, in other words, are more concerned with charity.

For a culture of prosperity to move forward in Guyana, we need to develop what Putnam called “classic secondary associations.”

These associations grow out of communities at the local level, and because of that, there tends to be higher levels of social trust, more informed decision based on grounded information, and greater efficiency because of proximate coordination of efforts.

Strong secondary associations also spawn informed local leadership and sturdy neighborhood ties. Networks of horizontal solidarity are likely to develop through these norms and practices.

Lets us now translate some of the abstract considerations above into some immediate matters at hand in Guyana. For this purpose we may return to Peeping Tom’s article – “Ask the Americans For Help” (KN Sept. 06).

The Peeper wrote about an unused building on the West Bank Demerara that was constructed with the intent of ‘empowering’ local youths through skills development. The building is not currently in use and the Peeper came to the conclusion that this is another case of ‘wasted millions’. ‘Wasted millions’ is, of course, a favourite thematic of Kaieteur News, evidence, or no evidence.

But there was something more telling in the Peeper’s narrative. Here he is in his own words – “Many of the young people wanted computer labs and community centres, and in giving these young people the opportunity to implement some of their ideas sufficient attention needed to be paid to sustainability.

When it comes to sustainability, it is important not only that there be needs (sic) and ability to sustain financing, but also the requisite institutional capacity for managing these things” (P. Tom, KN Sept. 06).

This looks fine, but only at first glance. The problem is that the Peeper wants the Government of Guyana, not only to build the building, but to also be there everyday holding the hands of people.

Where are the people of West Bank Demerara? Don’t hey have a role to play? The Peeper falls into the age old trap of thinking that government is responsible for all aspects of our lives. Does the Peeper want the government to build social capital among citizens of the West Bank, whereupon the he will turn around and accuse GoG of using youth centres for political purposes? Witness for instance how Bibi Nandram distorted government development efforts in the Amerindian communities (KN, Sept. 8).

Those of you who read my stuff will know by now that my writing is evidenced based. So allow me to really nail this point down. For that, let us take in some more of the Peeper.

Here he is – “[S]imply building a facility does not guarantee that it will be utilized. Mechanisms have to be put in place to ensure community ownership, participation and management” (P. Tom, KN Sept. 06).

The above is a contradiction of staggering proportions. How in the world can government GIVE ownership to a community?

Social ownership is earned through active participation at the community level. Local businesses and professionals on the West Bank have a civic obligation to reach out to youths in their own backyard, rather than appeal to government for yet another helping hand. Putnam was right; where you have lower levels of civic participation you are less likely to have social, economic, and cultural development.

That is why the building is sitting unused.

Funny enough, the Peeper himself said so when he noted that there should be “adult mentorship and guidance…”

The difference between a development-friendly society and a development-resistant society is that in the former, mentorship and guidance come through the stock of social capital; in the latter the folks sit and wait on the government. In the latter, intellectuals (in this case columnists) demand ‘ownership’ as a right, rather than promote a culture that facilitates that ownership.

The job of government is to listen to citizens and try as best as it can to meet the needs identified.

This is exactly what happened. Presidential Adviser on Empowerment, Mr. Odinga Lumumba, told me in a telephone conversation that the building was indeed built and handed over at the request of the West Bank community.

Yet, Kaieteur News published a BIG PHOTO of the building with the caption regarding the intention of the structure.

This was then followed up by the socially regressive text of the Peeper under the telling tile – “Ask the Americans For Help.”

I say again – Don’t ask the Americans for help! Instead, ask Guyanese citizens to participate in their own backyards.