THERE is a bad case of shingles in politics in Guyana; or more precisely, a bad case of shingles during the national budget debates.I resort to ‘shingles’ in a metaphorical sense because it can be recurrent in the same way that year after year, Guyana remains a victim of immoral and irresponsible budget excision.
Shingles is a disease. The varicella-zoster virus that is responsible for chicken pox also causes shingles; once the chicken pox is over, the virus remains inactive, but could be reactivated causing shingles later on. So says the Mayo Clinic.

I resort to ‘shingles’ in a metaphorical sense because it can be recurrent in the same way that year after year, Guyana remains a victim of immoral and irresponsible budget excision.

To put in perspective, metaphorically, it is as if the National Assembly, after the 2011 General and Regional Elections, contracted chicken pox which had run its course and was over in a few weeks, leaving the virus inactive. But metaphorically,over the last two years, the virus within the National Assembly became reactivated, affecting a majority of parliamentarianswho could have two or three episodes of shingles, thereby showing the persisting decision on budget excision; hence, now the shingles and the ailing parliamentarians, which should bear some responsibility for the diseased budget results, like the scissoring of major capital projects.
Indeed, I am dealing in metaphors, but readers are free to draw their conclusions on the state of play of the national budgets over the last two years.In reality, it seems as if year after year, the parliamentary majority’s intent is to stop the Government of Guyana’s key capital investment projects and make its programmes chaotic.
Previously, I noted in the Sunday Chronicle that: “The bottom line is that the excision is a cudgel against the poor and vulnerable, especially those cuts related to public capital investments, such as the Cheddi Jagan Airport Modernisation Project, Ogle Aerodrome assistance, Civil Aviation equipment and Hinterland/Coastal Airstrips, among others.”…
“There is evidence to indicate that public capital investments can present more gains to the people than private capital investments (Toye, 2000). Furthermore, the literature (Saleh and Harvie, 2005) showed that government consumption expenditures have a negative impact on growth, while government capital investment expenditures showed a positive influence on growth. Note that the budget cuts largely under capital expenditure, therefore, may place a question mark on growth.”
In the end, the ordinary people lose out amid budget disapprovals that place the Government’s programs in disarray. Yet, this parliamentary majority claims that grossly modifying the budget is the best course of action; that its decision is calculating and rational, and is the best choice.
Well, how could it be so rational when so many capital projects intended to bring many gains to ordinary people are diminished or even eliminated? And what about what the ordinary people want? Do ordinary people’s choices matter? Alternatively, did the parliamentary majority believe that it had no choice but to scissor the budget for all intents and purposes? And in taking the position that it had no choice, did it assume, too, that ordinary people have no choice as well? Did it stop to find out what actions ordinary people want and what choices ordinary people have?
While the capital investment projects would not have wiped out unemployment, they would have brought employment to a good number of people, increasing their coping capacity to deal with the constraints that affect their everyday life.But this was not to be, as the parliamentary majority used rational-choice to modify the national capital budget; this ‘rational-choice’ approach is the game theory approach which is pure calculation (Jasper, 2006); in this case, pure calculation for its own power-seeking self-interest, rather than national interest because the budget cuts wiped out employment for some people.
Jasper suggested that this rational-choice approach, too, makes unreasonable assumptions, as in the case of the Amaila Hydropower Project, when many cost arguments were imposed on the project without details on the assumptions underlying those costs; those assumptions, if calculated, would reveal the unreasonableness governing each cost argument.
In essence, the rational-choice approach does not consider the experiences of ordinary people who live within a culture of inequality and vulnerability. What the rational-choice approach to decision making does is that it makes a person’s decision (as in the case of the parliamentary majority’s budget disapprovals) seems credible and authentic; for as Jasper noted, it presents itself as covering all human constraints and as a total explanation of life. But the rational-choice approach is nothing of the sort.
In addition, Jasper argues that the rational-choice approach fails to account for people’s emotions, people’s passions that form people’s goals, alliances, choices, and pleasures. Perhaps, the parliamentary majority may claim that it is elected and, therefore, acts in the people’s interests. Well, if that is the case, then the implementation of the capital projects would have been in full swing.
Ordinary people must demand that all parliamentarians (and for that matter all involved in policy making) use evidence-based information to make their decisions. And if this did not happen in the parliamentary majority’s budget decisions, then the people of Guyana must take note of the last two years’ excessive and morally irresponsible budget excision, truly a calamity.But first, the metaphorical shingles plaguing some in the National Assembly would require treatment and care.

(By Dr. PremMisir)