REGULARLY, the Guyanese public is bombarded with negativism and criticism by opposition politicians and commentators who are opposed to the Government. Indeed, it is their right and freedom to do so. However, at the same time, it is incumbent upon them to recognise achievements and progress when they take place and are visible to all. Unless this is done, no objective-minded person will regard their criticisms with credibility. Not once have I ever heard, or read an opposition politician publicly acknowledge the transformation which has taken place and is taking place in our country. Not once have I ever heard unequivocal plaudits being given publicly by an opposition politician to any policy or project of the government. Not once have I ever heard or read an opposition politician extending their commendation to the Government for the eight (8) consecutive years of economic growth which Guyana recorded from 2005 – 2013. And the list goes on.

These politicians fail to recognise that these accomplishments are made, not only because of good governance and prudent management of the economy, but are largely achieved by the hard work, entrepreneurial initiatives, commercial courage and remarkable industry of the Guyanese people, including, our farmers, our businessmen, our industrialists, our gold and diamond miners, our contractors, our public servants and our private sector operatives.
In short, in their obsession not to credit the Government, they disregard the contributions and efforts of every single Guyanese.
In the same vein, whenever a report from some international organisation is published and it contains anything negative about Guyana’ it is automatically embraced as gospel. And it is used as a weapon against the Government. No attempt is ever made to question the methodology used or the process employed by which the conclusions are derived. Once it provides ammunition against the Government, it is loaded and fired through the barrel of the anti-PPP media, where the explosion is given the greatest prominence.
On the other hand, any report from these very international organisations, which credit the Government or publish anything positive about Guyana, is rejected by them. In their rejection, they subject these reports, their methodologies, procedures and conclusions to all manner of scrutiny, examination and analysis.
I will provide a case in point. In 2013 Guyana was one of the first countries accredited by the UN with achieving goal number one of the Millennium Development Goals- the Eradication of Extreme Poverty and Hunger. From all accounts, this is a remarkable achievement. However, an article published by the Stabroek News, January 19, 2014, says as follows “While Guyana may have reached that goal … economist Dr. Clive Thomas says this is nothing for the country to pat itself on the back for”. This statement is followed by an extraordinarily long explanation by Dr. Thomas for so concluding.
I have no doubt that had that very report deemed Guyana to be a country of extreme poverty, the very Mr. Thomas would have embraced the same, unconditionally, as the truth.
In the very article, Opposition Leader, Mr. David Granger, is quoted as querying the basis upon which Guyana was accredited by the UN. He cites a World Bank Report listing Guyana as the second poorest country in the Caribbean. He clearly accepts the accuracy of this World Bank report. Why? Because it is politically convenient for him to do so. But he doubts the UN conclusion, again, because it is conveniently expedient for him to do so. He omits to mention that IMF Report, December 2013, congratulates Guyana for recording the highest economic growth in the CARICOM Region for the year 2013. Why? Obviously, because it does not suit his political agenda.
These are the very persons who are calling for a social contract with the Government. To the ordinary Guyanese, I ask “Would you enter into any type of contract with a person who peddles lies and half-truths but refuses to embrace reality?” I am sure that your answer is no. I cannot see how the response of the Government would be any different.

SUNDAR NAUTH