WHEN the PPP assumed power on October 5, 1992, it outlined as one of its top priorities the development of the human potential.
Consistent with this approach to development, it reconfigured the budgetary allocation to put more emphasis on the social sectors,
more particularly that of health and education. This was in stark contrast to what happened under the previous PNC administration
where emphasis was put on the military, Foreign Service and Office of the President. Captured under the theme “Development with a Human Face”, the PPP administration diverted resources to the social sectors aimed at
improving the quality of life of the Guyanese people, in particular the working people which had taken a severe battering under the
PNC administration. Guyanese, who in the 1960’s had living standards comparable to any in the Anglo-phone Caribbean, had been reduced
by the early 1980’s to the poorest  in the western hemisphere.
The PNC, to its credit, adumbrated in the mid-1970’s a policy to “ Feed, House and Clothe the Nation” under the much publicized
Sophia Declaration but this proved to be a mere slogan.
Education was declared free from nursery to university but the reality of the situation was that the quality of education declined
sharply and could not have been sustained due mainly to mismanagement and high levels of corruption, squandermania and waste.
Whatever windfall the administration enjoyed in the mid-1970’s when commodity prices peaked, in particular that of sugar and bauxite,
soon dried up and the government found itself in a situation where it was unable to provide an acceptable quality of education to the
nation’s children. One consequence of that was the poor performance of Guyanese students at local and regional examinations to a
point where Guyanese students were at the bottom of the performance ladder at CXC/GCE examinations.
One of the major challenges faced by the PNC administration was that of mobilizing resources for development.
As a result, the regime was forced to engage in indiscriminate borrowing under onerous terms and conditions from the financial
institutions in particular the IMF and the World Bank.
At one stage the PNC found itself in a position where it was deemed not creditworthy after it failed to meet repayment obligations
both with respect to the principal sums and interest repayments. To compensate for this shortfall, the administration literally
squeezed every ounce of taxpayers earnings through all manner of compulsory saving bonds which were subsequently redeemed far below
its true value.
Public servants were compelled to purchase bonds from their meager salary in an effort to raise money to meet government expenditures
including the payment of salaries to public servants. In effect, it amounted to borrowing from public servants in order to meet the
wage bill and other forms of public expenditures.
Those familiar with the public service would know that all of the Ministries and Departments of Government were severely short of
funding to meet the most basic of services offered to the public.
The problem was an inadequacy of financial allocation to the sectors to a point where public sector managers were at their wits end
to effectively manage the delivery of basic services to the public.
Such was the extent of the paucity of resources that the government was forced to ease out housing from the budgetary line item
during the administration of Desmond Hoyte. Today, housing is taken for granted and could truly be regarded as a success story of
this current PPP/C administration. The much touted “Feed House and Clothe the nation” was supposed to deliver 65,000 houses over a
four year period (1972-1976) but by the end of that period only 13,000 houses were actually constructed, a mere 20% of the projected
target.
Compare this to the PPP/C administration which distributed in a single year what the PNC could not have done during its entire span
of government.
The point in all of this is not to make comparisons between the achievements of the PNC and that of the PPP/C. To begin with, the PNC
came to office by way of a manipulation of the democratic processes and perpetuated itself in office by undemocratic means. Hence,
the PNC lacked political legitimacy and therefore did not feel compelled to account to the Guyanese people for the stewardship in
government.
This year’s budget presented by Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh is consistent with the people-centred approach to development with
education, health and housing getting a disproportionate slice of the budgetary allocation.
This is by no means an elections year budget as the opposition is claiming. The fundamentals of the budget are to consolidate on the
gains achieved by the PPP/C administration and to further deepen the democratic process.  The budget seeks to ensure macro-economic
stability and sustain the growth momentum which is a sine qua non for human development.
The Minister of Finance and his team of officers must be given credit for once again crafting a budget that contains all the elements
of a good budget. The opposition would as expected try to punch holes as it were but this is to be expected given the fact that this
is an election year.
Credit, however, must be given where it is due and the President and his team of officials must be commended for being able in this
harsh economic environment to garner the kinds of resources to accelerate the pace of national development and in the process secure
the future of the citizens of Guyana.