Dear Editor

Iam not usually in the habit of responding to people who present minimal appropriate evidence. Nonetheless, in the Kaieteur News of February 21, 2011, there are two letters that require some level of response. In my previous letter, “Replicating an Egypt in Guyana against the New Opposition”, I merely indicated that Guyana is a fragile democracy. Indeed, Guyana does not have an absolute democracy. Guyana is an evolving democracy pursuing a path toward consolidation of its democracy. Guyana’s democracy is a work in progress. And we must understand that ‘democracy’ in this context refers to democracy at all levels.

The international Democracy Index of the Economist placed Guyana in the same category as Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Jamaica, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, Honduras, among others.

Indeed, if the new opposition were not unleashing measures of desperation over the last few years, Guyana’s democracy would have soared to greater heights. It is always good to carry an effective opposition; but what is problematic is when that opposition applies distortions to tackle issues, as in the case of the global food and fuel price increases of 2008. For instance, in 2008, the opposition’s presentation on rising cost of living indicated that the Government of Guyana was totally culpable for the increased food prices. The oppositional elements were unaware that the global food crisis had its genesis in 2002; and where in 2007, global grain prices increased by as much as 42%.
The opposition, in their haste to create instability, and thereby halt the pace of democratic development, failed to acknowledge that food costs as a percentage of disposable income rose astronomically. Nowhere is this more lucid than in the developing world where nearly 75% of a person’s disposable income is on food expenditure.

Again, democracy does not only encompass casting ballots on Election Day, but instead, is grounded in the framework of electoral pluralism, which embodies electoral competitiveness and electoral inclusiveness; and while Guyana’s democracy may not be perfect, it remains a work in progress which this government continues to work tirelessly to consolidate. And while we have come a far way in our quest for the consolidation of Guyana’s democracy, the “callous legacy” that followed the PNC’s removal from office in 1992 was nothing short of a logistical nightmare which the PPP had to overcome in order to obtain and consolidate democracy in Guyana, and regain the trust of the Guyanese people, which the PNC government betrayed.

In the afore-mentioned letter, where I mentioned the callous legacy of the failed PNC/R government, I was referring to not only the Hoyte administration, but to the entire 28 years for which that party dominated and dictated the affairs of this country, and disregarded the lives of its people.
Democracy is more than casting ballots at elections. Nonetheless, the Constitution guarantees the right of Guyanese to vote for the party and presidential candidate of their choosing. This decision is only that of the individual to make, and regardless of ethnicity or race, we must respect that person’s voting decision. And what are the criteria for determining whether or not a person voted on the basis of ethnicity? In answering this question, we must distinguish between ‘attitude’ and ‘behavior’. It is hard to unravel the mind or rationale of a voter to determine whether or not he/she voted on the basis of ethnicity.

What follows are some data on this ‘callous legacy’ I previously presented in other fora. The PPP/C Government inherited a logistical nightmare in 1992. The new Administration in 1992 had to grapple with numerous constraints. Guyana’s foreign debt was about US$2.1 billion; debt service payments amounted to 105% of current revenue, and the entire social services sector received a mere 8% of revenue. In effect, funds were scarcely available to achieve sustainable external debt levels, and this scarcity greatly impacted sustainable development.
At the end of 2010, the external debt was US$1,004 M. And Guyana did not achieve financial viability until around the year 2000. During the Hoyte era, the rice industry was also in crisis. Rice production was 93,000 tonnes in 1990; 150,000 tonnes in 1991; 365,000 tonnes in 1999; 291,000 tonnes in 2000; 321,000 tonnes in 2001; 287,755 tonnes in 2002; 355,019 tonnes in 2003; 325,593 tonnes in 2004; 277,531 tonnes in 2005; 307,041 tonnes in 2006; 298,100 in 2007, 329,600 in 2008, 183,409 in 2009, and 237,071 in 2010.
When the PPP/C took office in 1992, Guyana was importing sugar from Guatemala.  Sugar tonnage was as follows: 167,000 in 1989, 129,000 in 1990; 321,000 in 1999;  273,000 in 2000; 284,000 in 2001;  331,057 in 2002;  302,378 in 2003;  325,317 in 2004;  246,050 in 2005; 259,388 in 2006; 266,500 in 2007, and 226,300 in 2008, 170,422 in 2009, and 147,308 in 2010.

Given the impact of post-elections violence at three elections in 1992, 1997, and 2001, as well as the periodic violent protests over the years, it is not surprising that the specter of political instability became a rising star. Despite such negativities, Guyana experienced some sustainable growth and poverty reduction. Poverty declined from 86% in 1991 to 35 % in 1999. The growth rates of Real  Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually were 7.9%, 6.2%, 0.8%, 3.0%, –1.4%, 2.3%, 1.1%, 1.1%, 1.6%, -1.9%, 5.1%, 5.4%, 3.1%, 2.3% in 1996, 1997,1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively.
In 1981, Vice-President Desmond Hoyte admitted that the performance of the economy “was disastrous”. This was later reaffirmed by the New Nation in 1982, when they said that the economy was “tottering o the brink of collapse”.  Later in 1982, Hoyte again confessed “we are not deemed to be credit worthy”…”with a debt of such magnitude, we are clearly not running a viable system”; subsequently, the Minister of Finance added “the total national savings stand at zero. Guyana has reached the stage where neither our debt at home nor abroad can be paid”. This callous legacy that the PNC would leave to burden Guyana’s future generations was later articulated by Finance Minister Carl Greenidge’s confession, “The production sector of Guyana has undergone a marked decline over the last three years. I can offer no comforting solution which will allow us to survive and prosper.”

I think these letter writers need to acknowledge that fundamental human rights and major constitutional reforms came to Guyana only after the PPP/C restored democracy in 1992. If more information is required on the ‘callous legacy’ thing that the PPP inherited and on Guyana’s democracy, then I will be happy to provide more data.