THE Social & Economic Studies of the University of the West Indies (55, 3, 2006, 208-211) first carried my response to Dr. David Hinds’ sentiments and ideas (SES, 54:1 2005, 67-82).
Here it is:
There are different truths; truths engaging a different agenda of questions, to preserve the existing order of things, not the total truth; truths preserving a group’s agenda to initiate change, another limited truth; both situations are people’s perceptions of what their concept of truth is; both representing a biased version of the true reality.

I present a few examples of limited truths, as follows: Democracy has not taken hold in Guyana; economic development is still a far cry from being part of the woodwork in Guyana; the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) is responsible for the lack of democracy and the lack of economic development, through its failure to construct a national consensus immediately preceding the 1992 general elections.

Dr. David Hinds presented these sentiments and ideas in the Social and Economic Studies (54:1 2005, 67-82) of the University of the West Indies (UWI); and Hinds’ complaint of the PPP bungling the opportunity to achieve a national consensus is ostensibly based on the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) version; an explanation lacking in completeness. Hinds neglected to inject the PPP’s version into his discussion; and of course, to include, too, other versions pertinent to the discussion.

The PPP first initiated a proposal for the formation of a National Patriotic Front Government in 1977; not much happened then, except a few temporary alliances. A stronger arrangement emerged after the 1985 national elections, when the Patriotic Coalition for Democracy (PCD) was established to remove the People’s National Congress (PNC) dictatorship; bringing together five of the six opposition parties that contested the 1985 elections.

Eventually, a PCD programme or platform was documented, but not publicly released. The PPP felt that it was mandatory to publicly disseminate such a programme prior to the 1992 elections; enabling its access to all sections of society.

Disagreement emerged, too, on the choice of a presidential candidate. The WPA initially agreed to have a person from one of the parties, but subsequently altered its position. The PPP consistently supported a person from one of the parties.

The PCD rejected the PPP’s nominee, Dr Cheddi Jagan, as the presidential candidate, because he was an Indian; the PPP then suggested Dr Roger Luncheon; he, too, was rejected because he was considered a communist.

Disagreement continued on party allocation for the joint slate for the National Assembly. The WPA suggested that half of the joint slate should be allocated equally to the four parties; the other half to the civic groups. Under this formula, the PPP would have contributed only 12.5% to the joint slate. Rejection of the proposal followed.

The PPP further suggested a provisional presidential candidate and a provisional distribution for the joint slate in the proportion of 4-3-2-1, as one party had dropped out of the PCD; this proposal, too, was short-lived.

And so, to which party could we attribute blame for not achieving a national consensus in 1992? Clearly, there was considerable disagreement within the PCD immediately preceding the 1992 national elections; and there may very well be other pieces of evidence on considerable disagreement within the PCD prior to 1992.

Hinds’ argument that the PPP bungled on the achievement of a national consensus, therefore, is difficult to accept.

In commenting on Guyana’s fragile democracy and evolving economic development, why can we not simultaneously acknowledge the ‘what is’? Maybe, Guyana is experiencing a democratisation and economic development process not as fast-paced as we may wish; nonetheless, there are developments proceeding on both fronts which require some acknowledgement. Non-presentation of the ‘what is’ strengthens biases in any type of assessment. And there is no significant discussion of social indicators and social development in the Hinds piece.

Indeed, the article in Social and Economic Studies contains no comparative data on economic development for the 1992-2005 period; suffice it to say that reasonable economic development has occurred, and while it is not my intention here to assail this presentation with statistics, a few may point to some progressive development on the economic front; these statistics may belie Hinds’ assertion of a lack of economic development.

After 1992, Guyana was classified as a lower middle-income country; and the United Nations Statistics Division and the World Bank reported the following on GNI per capita: US$860 in 2000; US$840 in 2001; US$860 in 2002; US$890 in 2003; US$990 in 2004; US$1088.9 in 2005; US$1,130 in 2006; and US$1,386 in 2007. The GNI per capita was US$231 in 1991. The total minimum wage was US$22 in 1991 and US$150 in 2008.

Inflation soared at 105% in 1991, and was 6.4% in 2008; interest rate hovered over 100% in 1992; the Prime Lending Rate and Savings Deposit Rate were 14.54% and 3.17%, respectively, in 2008; and US$2 billion external debt at 1992 was US$757.43 million in 2008; servicing of total debt was US$2.94 million in 2008, well below 10% of exports of goods and on-factor services, reduced from 105% in 1992 and 90% in 1993 (Bank of Guyana was the source for the 2008 statistics). Guyana’s economic growth rate was 1.6% in 2004; -1.9% in 2005; 5.1% in 2006; 5.4% in 2007; and 3.1% in 2008.

The IMF Executive Board on May 19, 2009 stated the following on Guyana: “…Executive Directors noted that by implementing prudent fiscal and monetary policies, the Guyanese authorities had maintained macroeconomic stability in 2008 despite external shocks and social pressures…Directors commended the authorities’ commitment to further entrench macroeconomic stability, strengthen the financial system, and implement structural reforms…”.

I think, too, that we need to consider the countervailing effects of the world econ
omy on developing economies prior to making significant economic pronouncements.

At any rate, whenever world development slows down, poor nations are disproportionately affected.

The IMF (2003) reported that world development at US dollars and at current exchange rates declined from about 5.5% in 1970-80, to 2.3% in 1980-90, to 1.1% in 1990-2000.

World income inequality rose since the 1970s. This trend is strongest when incomes are calculated at market-exchange-rate incomes (Wade, World Development, 2004).

According to the IMF, the global economy has been experiencing severe recession for some time now, and projections indicate that it will decline by 1.3% in 2009, a slowdown that began in the summer of 2007.

In addition, consider the Sen Paradigm of development. Nobel Prize-winning economist, Professor Amartya Sen has shown the futility of the traditional economic development perspectives of income, growth, and utility embracing GDP per capita, food security, and poverty. Sen believes that a better approach is to evaluate market outcomes and government actions in relation to valuable human results produced.

This is a paradigm shift in development, moving away from income/growth/utility to a new beginning, a new focus on people’s entitlements, capabilities, freedoms, and rights.

Note that the Human Development Index (HDI) is partly sourced from Sen’s work.

Note the three critical human capabilities in the HDI – literacy rate, income, and life expectancy at birth; a mixed bag of social and economic indicators.

The Sen paradigm refutes the significance of a total focus on economic indicators, perhaps to the detriment of social development; significantly applying social indicators is now becoming the norm of developing economies as a response to HDI.

The following key indicators of health have progressively improved over recent years: Infant mortality, maternal mortality, doctor/patient ratio, nurse/patient ratio, and bed/patient ratio.

Today, the national enrolment ratios for both primary and secondary schools are increasingly better than a decade ago; but hinterland regions are still hovering around a third in secondary school enrolment. By 2002, 74.2% of the people had access to safe drinking water; excepting Region Eight (Potaro/Siparuni) where only 26.6% had access.

Electrification is now within the reach of 75% of households.

Hinds asserts that the democratisation process in Guyana is inadequate.

In a democracy, a citizen is expected to appreciate diversity; actively participate in the society; be well informed; and support the State.

There is absolutely no disagreement that democracy involves more than casting the ballot at election times.

Faced with the legacy of an authoritarian regime, the new government in 1992 faced enormous problems in establishing a democracy, because of some persisting autocratic traditions, beliefs, and values unsuited to a functioning democracy.

Notwithstanding such adversities, Freedom House, a highly-respected international group, depicts Guyana as free and high on political rights and civil liberties today.

Has Guyana not made some strides in the reconstruction of democracy? Do we not see social developments in this country? I would answer in the affirmative.

But we must do more in the cause of development; projecting limited truths may be unhelpful. And this projection may very well not be Dr. Hinds’ intent. Perhaps, the Editor of Social and Economic Studies can commission a contribution on social and economic development in post-1992 Guyana.
PREM MISIR