Mr HUGH Desmond Hoyte ascended to the presidency of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana on the death of President Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham on 5th August 1985; and in the General and Regional Elections (GRE) of 1985, he was elected president.It is acknowledged that elections in our history are a source of contention. There have been allegations that, while elections are deemed free and fair, they have not at all times been free from fear. There are claims and counter claims of rigged elections, the High Court vitiation of the 2007 GRE, a parliamentary seat wrongly designated, and efforts ensured to avoid a repeat of the latter.

While our electoral experiences await less emotional outbursts and beg for objectivity in analyses, the most will be said here is that, as president, Hoyte had within his power the authority to refuse electoral reform. That he chose to take the country on the route of electoral reform is undoubted. What influenced his decision, one way or the other, towards this end awaits objective analysis.

Hoyte came to the presidency at the time when external and domestic affairs were going through much agitation and clamour for change. Externally, the formidable alliance of USA President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to topple communism, which later saw the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, was a major blow to bringing the Cold War to an end. Simultaneously, then USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev moved to a glasnost policy, which opened states in USSR. This not only saw the communist bloc falling, but also Gorbachev’s political career.

On the economic front, neo-liberalism, driven by Reagan and Thatcher, was being pushed. Those leaders saw governments and trade unions as hindrances to development, and this led to actions that saw less government through outsourcing of government businesses, creating a new form of government contractors and moves to break up unions, or make it hard for workers to join or be represented by a union of choice.

International financial institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), significantly influenced by the big three — USA, Canada and Britain — made conditions for lending to small state economies contingent on these values.

Internally, Hoyte was confronted with agitation by the political opposition and sections of civil society for electoral reform, and with condemnation of the then national developmental thrust. On the industrial front, there was trade union activism, inclusive of strikes, which created opportunities for political instigation and alignment by both governing and opposition forces.

Still feeling the impact of the global oil crisis; foreign exchange scarcities; restrictions on importation of some items, inclusive of food and other basic essentials; infrastructure, social services and public utilities falling apart, decisions had to be made. Mr. Hoyte chose the route of neoliberalism, crafting a new developmental thrust, called the Economic Recovery Programme. This programme saw major divestment of the state, which held an approximate 80 percent share of the economy. To cushion the move away from a socialist economy to that of a market/neo-liberal-oriented one, there were some structural adjustment programmes, such as Social Impact Amelioration Programme (SIMAP) and the Secondary School Reform Programme. Training, education and retooling were done to prepare and empower citizens to take advantage of the new developmental thrust.

The dollar was devalued, to be determined by market forces. Trading in foreign currency became legitimate. Retrenchment and redeployment occurred, with government getting out of some businesses. Workers saw their incomes and pensions in terms of real wages devalued. In short, it was a systemic shift in the nation’s body politic, and it would not be unfair to say it was a move not understood and welcomed by many. It also created avenues for political and industrial exploitation. Guyana moved from a closed society — a feature of socialism/communism — to that of an open society influenced by the new neo-liberal model. The media landscape opened, with Stabroek News in newspaper; Anthony Vieira, Rex McKay and CN Sharma in television as the early pioneers.

Mr. Hoyte died on 22nd December 2002 while in office as Leader of the Opposition and PNCR, the former he held from October 1992. Though he continues to be accused of many things (rightly or wrongly), there is a general acceptance that, in his public life, he was a formidable force; meticulous, with a demonstrated intolerance for corruption; a stickler for order, rule of law and professionalism. He impacted our lives in the various constitutional and political offices he held.

A nation’s development is also hinged on understanding of its history and the role(s) played by its citizens. Where other countries make this a key component in their education policy, Guyana has lagged behind with its post-independence history. The absence of this aspect of civic education may, in part, be the influencing factor of a polarised nation, where supporters of one party are conditioned and taught to see leaders and supporters of other parties as enemies and people who did nothing good for Guyana.

It requires work to bring this nation to a place where we can have frank, honest and open discourse about those who have led/served this country, whether they had/have our support or not.

There comes a time when a decision, as a matter of national priority, has to be taken that would break from the past and give young and upcoming generations the opportunity to know the past, absent the bitterness and bile, and let them form their own opinions. It is our intent to have such discourse.