ONE fact of political life is that when a new government replaces one which has been in power for a long time, it invariably confronts three interrelated factors. First, it comes into office with lots of goodwill, particularly from its supporters. Second, after the so-called honeymoon and its novelty wanes, it inherits the woes of the previous government. Third, there are extremely high expectations of both instant success and failure from its supporters and detractors respectively.

Most new governments, in the early period of their tenure, tend to factor into their calculations an overemphasis on the first factor -— the goodwill from their supporters —- and place less emphasis on the other factors. This is understandable, given the fact that, in their quest for legitimacy, they usually focus in the direction from which they perceive it emanates. In those circumstances when the initial excitement wanes and the other factors kick-in, these governments are often caught by surprise.

Here, in Guyana, we elected a new government a mere fourteen months ago, after the previous one had been in office for almost 23 years. Some political analysts have observed that the excitement and emotions that accompanied that change of government was unprecedented. There was, among the government’s supporters, a burst of civic outpouring that signalled a renewed confidence in the political process. Huge crowds poured into the public space for the prolonged inaugural events. An air of rebirth and mass commitment to nationhood permeated the political landscape as the new government — itself a new phenomenon, given its multi-party nature — got down to the business of governing.

It seems as if the promise of change by the rulers found common ground with the expectations of transformation by masses on the ground. There were some initial signals from the government that it was intent on governing differently from its predecessors. It weathered a gathering storm in the form of a challenge to the country’s sovereignty from neighbouring Venezuela, and responded with dignity to the expected taunts and tantrums from the former rulers. While the latter did not offer a magnanimous hand to their successors, resistance from their supports was somewhat muted. This allowed space for the new government to enjoy a degree of legitimacy, despite lacking the confidence of half of the electorate — an accomplishment of sorts in our ethnically fractured country.

Now, fourteen months later, the situation has changed drastically. The honeymoon has long subsided; the cheering crowds in front of parliament and elsewhere are gone; and the expectations of real change seem to be everywhere on the faces and in the voices of government supporters. Whether it is action on the forensic audits, increased wages for workers, or the matter of the vendors, there is pressure on the government to deliver on its promises — at least to its supporters.

There is a sense of impatience with the cautious approach being taken by the government on some very sensitive matters. The rulers appear to have learned that lofty campaign promises, even if grounded in justice, do not necessarily translate into concrete policy once the party or parties get into office. Factors such as the global and regional environments, coupled with structural weaknesses of local institutions and the very nature of the country’s political economy, conspire to make governing much more complex than was communicated on the campaign trail. Governments simply cannot do as they like, particularly in a democratic environment.

Yet, the expectations of government’s supporters cannot be wished away; they are grounded in a perception and reality of two decades of exclusion from power. This is itself a structural challenge inherent in our winner-takes-all system. Thus the new government is expected to cure this ailment by opening up avenues for a fairer distribution of resources in the core areas of the political economy.

Therein lies the challenge for the government: how does it balance objective governance with correcting the social inequities it inherited, while ensuring that its supporters are afforded a sense of social and economic security? Put another way, the government has to figure out how to satisfy the expectations of its core constituency, without discriminating against other sections of our plural society.

After fourteen months, the government can no longer run away from ownership of some of the woes it inherited. Even though it did not initiate the rotten and undemocratic procurement system, it has to fix it. The public challenge by one company to government’s award of a major contract to a favoured company during the PPP era brings into the open a huge area of contention. The government cannot just cite legalities, it has to face up to other factors, such as equality of opportunity and the unevenness constructed by the past regime.
That the economy is ailing has little to do with the policies of this government, but it has to own it and fix it. It has to decide whether it is going to continue lock, stock and barrel with the PPP’s economic policies, or whether it is going to lead the way in charting an alternative course. Economic statistics do not always tell the story of the poor and powerless in the society; in fact, those statistics often mask that story. For me, the ultimate measure of the health of an economy such as ours is the extent to which people are working and making a living wage, and whether small- and medium-sized businesses are generating a living income for their owners.

Finally, the government has to contend with an opposition party that has little regard for political morality. It has attacked the government on policies and measures which it institutionalized while in office.
Make no mistake: the PPP is unmatched in its capacity for erasing from its consciousness any wrongdoing under its watch. This puts tremendous pressure on the government, as it has to spend a lot of time explaining that it is not the architect of many things it is being accused of. The next year would be a defining one for the Coalition.

More of Dr. Hinds ‘writings and commentaries can be found on his YouTube Channel Hinds’ Sight: Dr. David Hinds’ Guyana-Caribbean Politics and on his website www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com. Send comments to dhinds6106@aol.com