.jpg)
GUYANA yesterday celebrated its 43rd anniversary as a constitutional republic amid very encouraging indicators for further economic growth and job creation, a position that currently places it in a unique position among CARICOM member states. A combination of enlightened fiscal management, under Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh, and continuing encouraging growth performances in key sectors of the economy, have sustained four consecutive years of growth at approximately five (5) percent.
And the latest assessment earlier this month from the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) is that “Guyana is forecast to lead the way in real GDP (Gross Domestic Product), projected at around five percent… Much of this is expected to be generated from stepped-up public sector investment, and from gains in the agriculture sector…”
Guyana’s CARICOM partners, among them Trinidad and Tobago — currently involved in initiatives to boost trade and economic investment cooperation — are quite conscious of the steady growth pace being registered as a consequence of the prevailing healthy public sector/private sector relationship, and of spreading investment and employment opportunities.
However, those familiar with the pitiful state of domestic party politicking would not expect any public recognition from the parliamentary opposition of these positive developments. Sadly, the main opposition, APNU (the PNCR in new clothing) seems locked in a survival game, having been trapped by the minority AFC — BEFORE the implosion of last July’s “Linden crisis” — into emotional, often personal, responses bereft of alternative proposals/initiatives.
The Linden tragedies, in the loss of lives and destruction by arson of billions of dollars in public and private properties, have evidently exposed some serious deficiencies in the APNU/AFC coalition, which continue to manifest ongoing contradictions at the level of Parliament.
The Linden deficit
Further APNU/AFC difficulties to extricate themselves from their entanglements with the “Linden crisis” are expected with release of the official report by the high-level Commission of Inquiry, not the least being lack of ANY evidence to implicate Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee in any wrong doing.
Prior to the ‘Linden crisis”, APNU’s leader, David Granger, had raised hopes for structured dialogue with President Donald Ramotar with a view to promoting consensus on major national issues. Instead, that is, of perpetuating the sterile, unproductive confrontational politics that have long been a familiar pattern for both the PPP/C and PNCR.
So, on Guyana’s 43rd anniversary as a constitutional republic, and considering how, for all their own weaknesses, the late Presidents Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan did, occasionally, revealed their own awareness of the value of cooperation, why should hope not be raised for a new deal in governance politics with the leaders of the PNCR (Granger) and PPP (President Donald Ramotar) as active participants?
Why, more than four decades after the end of British colonial rule and republican constitutional status, should the major ethnic segments of the Guyanese society continue to be misled into thinking that the “trouble” is with the “other side”?
And be left to frustratingly wonder why such an absence of serious readiness to establish constructive alternatives could indeed be hammered out in a climate of goodwill and readiness to ‘walk the talk’?
If, for instance, a register of talents and skills among the various ethnic segments does not now exist, then one should be seriously pursued with a view to encouraging the most suitable citizens for employment with no prior consideration to either race or political persuasion.
Not glassy-eyed|
This is not a glassy-eyed approach to a fundamental problem. It’s a simple plea for a new beginning that, of necessity, must involve the President of this nation and the parliamentary Opposition Leader in public initiatives that could inspire hope for the future at a time when Guyana continues to reveal opportunities for greater economic and social advancement.
The former Brigadier of the Guyana Defence Force and current Opposition Leader would know of his own internal challenges within the PNCR and APNU both of which, curiously, he heads amid lingering uncertainties over another general election.
Whatever may be the minus factors, David Granger seems to have the capacity and, hopefully the commitment, to overcome narrow, partisan constraints to influence new creative initiatives for national cooperation.
President Ramotar, as leader of the PPP would likewise be expected to be forthcoming in ideas and gestures that could move the political processes forward. There is far too much bitterness at present in the politics that are now increasingly being revealed with successive meetings of Parliament.
Speaker’s leadership
Here, I wish to note how refreshing it was to learn of Speaker Raphael Trotman’s very enlightened ruling to bring an end to the childish politicking, fanned by elements of both APNU and AFC, to deprive Home Affairs Minister Rohee his constitutional right to speak and be heard in the National Assembly.
The Speaker may have taken a bit too long to deliver his ruling, but he would have done more than credit to his own profession as a lawyer, as well as to himself as a politician who seems to know when to part company with utter political foolishness—whether at party or personal level.
It is now left to be seen what the APNU/PNCR’s Deborah Backer, would do—if she hopes to continue as Deputy Speaker–having so grossly misused her position when she last sat in the Speaker’s chair in the absence of Mr Trotman.
She did so without even a subdued murmur from so- called local “opinion makers” or, worse, representatives of the leading private sector and non-government organizations!!
In the meanwhile, as the PNCR and PPP hopefully engage in their own desirable critical self-analyses, it is to be wondered whether the leadership of the AFC would endeavour to do likewise and show signs of discomfort with their self-righteous claims against corruption and nepotism that have such a hollow public ring! More later.
And the latest assessment earlier this month from the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) is that “Guyana is forecast to lead the way in real GDP (Gross Domestic Product), projected at around five percent… Much of this is expected to be generated from stepped-up public sector investment, and from gains in the agriculture sector…”
Guyana’s CARICOM partners, among them Trinidad and Tobago — currently involved in initiatives to boost trade and economic investment cooperation — are quite conscious of the steady growth pace being registered as a consequence of the prevailing healthy public sector/private sector relationship, and of spreading investment and employment opportunities.
However, those familiar with the pitiful state of domestic party politicking would not expect any public recognition from the parliamentary opposition of these positive developments. Sadly, the main opposition, APNU (the PNCR in new clothing) seems locked in a survival game, having been trapped by the minority AFC — BEFORE the implosion of last July’s “Linden crisis” — into emotional, often personal, responses bereft of alternative proposals/initiatives.
The Linden tragedies, in the loss of lives and destruction by arson of billions of dollars in public and private properties, have evidently exposed some serious deficiencies in the APNU/AFC coalition, which continue to manifest ongoing contradictions at the level of Parliament.
The Linden deficit
Further APNU/AFC difficulties to extricate themselves from their entanglements with the “Linden crisis” are expected with release of the official report by the high-level Commission of Inquiry, not the least being lack of ANY evidence to implicate Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee in any wrong doing.
Prior to the ‘Linden crisis”, APNU’s leader, David Granger, had raised hopes for structured dialogue with President Donald Ramotar with a view to promoting consensus on major national issues. Instead, that is, of perpetuating the sterile, unproductive confrontational politics that have long been a familiar pattern for both the PPP/C and PNCR.
So, on Guyana’s 43rd anniversary as a constitutional republic, and considering how, for all their own weaknesses, the late Presidents Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan did, occasionally, revealed their own awareness of the value of cooperation, why should hope not be raised for a new deal in governance politics with the leaders of the PNCR (Granger) and PPP (President Donald Ramotar) as active participants?
Why, more than four decades after the end of British colonial rule and republican constitutional status, should the major ethnic segments of the Guyanese society continue to be misled into thinking that the “trouble” is with the “other side”?
And be left to frustratingly wonder why such an absence of serious readiness to establish constructive alternatives could indeed be hammered out in a climate of goodwill and readiness to ‘walk the talk’?
If, for instance, a register of talents and skills among the various ethnic segments does not now exist, then one should be seriously pursued with a view to encouraging the most suitable citizens for employment with no prior consideration to either race or political persuasion.
Not glassy-eyed|
This is not a glassy-eyed approach to a fundamental problem. It’s a simple plea for a new beginning that, of necessity, must involve the President of this nation and the parliamentary Opposition Leader in public initiatives that could inspire hope for the future at a time when Guyana continues to reveal opportunities for greater economic and social advancement.
The former Brigadier of the Guyana Defence Force and current Opposition Leader would know of his own internal challenges within the PNCR and APNU both of which, curiously, he heads amid lingering uncertainties over another general election.
Whatever may be the minus factors, David Granger seems to have the capacity and, hopefully the commitment, to overcome narrow, partisan constraints to influence new creative initiatives for national cooperation.
President Ramotar, as leader of the PPP would likewise be expected to be forthcoming in ideas and gestures that could move the political processes forward. There is far too much bitterness at present in the politics that are now increasingly being revealed with successive meetings of Parliament.
Speaker’s leadership
Here, I wish to note how refreshing it was to learn of Speaker Raphael Trotman’s very enlightened ruling to bring an end to the childish politicking, fanned by elements of both APNU and AFC, to deprive Home Affairs Minister Rohee his constitutional right to speak and be heard in the National Assembly.
The Speaker may have taken a bit too long to deliver his ruling, but he would have done more than credit to his own profession as a lawyer, as well as to himself as a politician who seems to know when to part company with utter political foolishness—whether at party or personal level.
It is now left to be seen what the APNU/PNCR’s Deborah Backer, would do—if she hopes to continue as Deputy Speaker–having so grossly misused her position when she last sat in the Speaker’s chair in the absence of Mr Trotman.
She did so without even a subdued murmur from so- called local “opinion makers” or, worse, representatives of the leading private sector and non-government organizations!!
In the meanwhile, as the PNCR and PPP hopefully engage in their own desirable critical self-analyses, it is to be wondered whether the leadership of the AFC would endeavour to do likewise and show signs of discomfort with their self-righteous claims against corruption and nepotism that have such a hollow public ring! More later.
