A CURSORY look at the election season conjures up some images of a lacklustre campaign amid great promises for the nation. Huge and consistent promises not commensurate with any credible funding base are a characteristic feature of desperation, as the contenders approach the final turn to the finish line. And numerous promises are emanating from the opposition forces. On the other hand, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) invariably does not have to shield itself with colossal promises, because it already has a political governance track record clearly signalling the perpetuation of significant policies, programmes, and projects. And with all the allegations of corruption and narco-trafficking heaped upon the ruling party, the PPP/C steadfastly remains the only party to beat, come November 28.
Look, any pragmatist will acknowledge that no country in the world is virgin territory when it comes to immersion in corruption and narco-trafficking. Indeed, these things are evil and must be subject to erasure, the trouble is that erasure will require a global engagement, as these evils are global phenomena. For these reasons, the opposition’s accusation of the PPP/C’s corrupt practices will have limited significance in people’s voting patterns. Therefore, the opposition applying this line of strategy is doing so at its own peril; and, indeed, heading down the road of defeat. To win this election requires more than a laundry list of promises.
Look at the promises shelled out at the University of Guyana (UG) debate last week. The first ground-breaking presidential debate for UG and the country was disappointing in that the entire debate was nothing but an ugly spectacle of unruly behaviour.
At that debate, the presidential candidate for A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Mr. David Granger, unleashed his weapon of promises left, right, and centre. He promised to provide each UG lecturer with a laptop, to make more funds available to teachers and lecturers, to create jobs commensurate with people’s qualifications, to give UG better laboratories. He said he would bring scientists to UG, and would pay better salaries to stem the rise in migration. There were other promises, too.
Nevertheless, fulfilling promises is predicated upon appropriate funding; otherwise, promises become empty shells, just like APNU – a shell coalition. For all his promises, Granger worded not even a sentence on funding at the debate. And assuming the reports are correct, Granger talked about APNU being a coalition of 10 parties; none of these coalition parties subordinate to the dominant People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) has any credible constituency and support base, and most were ‘also-rans’ at previous national and regional elections.
In effect, APNU is not a real coalition, nothing approaching any ‘big tent’. In that case, it is foolhardy to refer to APNU as striving for national unity when its coalition partners are hardly representative of the Guyanese nation; that is, inclusive of all ethnic groups. As I pen this piece, the APNU party platforms are not yet on the streets, so APNU’s vision and strategy for national unity are unclear.
And let me be clear about what national unity should not be: National unity must not mean a watering down of any group’s culture. National unity must not mean giving a higher status to some cultures and not to others. Ethnicities should be given space to unite and interact within a cultural mosaic. National unity must mean a dynamic co-existence of each group’s culture. National unity must create legroom and promote an appreciation of all cultures. Further, all cultures must be on a level playing field to contribute to societal development. In multiracial societies, good governance generally ensures the confluence of each ethnic group’s culture to create national unity.
And then there is the Alliance For Change, spewing the populous and crumbling electoral ploy to attract the electorate vis-à-vis income tax reductions to 25% and increasing the tax threshold from $40,000 to $50,000 per month, all in the name of attempting to increase the purchasing power of individuals. The AFC should know that this promise about increasing people’s purchasing power is not substantial enough when compared to the existing state of affairs. The PPP/C increased the tax threshold from $48,000 in 1992 to $480,000 per year today; and there are ‘zero VAT items’, especially on foodstuffs, and ‘zero-exempt’ items, for those who argue that a 16% VAT is high.
Furthermore, in relation to purchasing power, let me say that I previously stated that “The Guyana Government countered the twin evils of rising food and fuel prices in 2008, and in its aftermath vis-à-vis the following: a 5% increase in remuneration for public service employees, effective January 1, 2008; temporary cost-of-living adjustment of $4,000 monthly to public service employees earning $50,000 and less  per month; subsidies to Guyana Power & Light and Guyana Water, Inc. to stem water and electricity rates’ increases; the exclusion of value added tax (VAT) on all essential food items; no excise tax on diesel; a reduced tax on gasoline; zero tax on kerosene and cooking gas; the provision of a flour subsidy of $200 million to cushion price increases of flour and bread; implementation of the ‘Grow More Food’ campaign; administration of the US$600  million READ project and the US$21.9 million ADE project, and finding new lands to step up production in foods and other crops. If I am not mistaken, no other CARICOM country provided its people with such considerable economic cushions in the wake of huge food and fuel price increases in 2008.

The Guyanese people’s choice should not be difficult on November 28. On the basis of record and achievements alone, the voter would have no choice but to vote for the PPP/C.