GOVERNMENT’S National Youth Policy was on Thursday night passed by the National Assembly despite several concerns raised and recommendations made by Members of Parliament (MPs) from the parliamentary Opposition.The passage and adoption of the policy will allow for the Ministry of Education, Department of Culture, Youth and Sport and its stakeholders to carry out activities that target youth development. According to that Ministry, the policy is premised on improving the social, emotional and cultural skills of young people, producing a productive and enterprising youth workforce, developing quality education and market-oriented skills, encouraging leadership, participation and representation and promoting good health, security and safety.
Minister within the Ministry of Education, Nicolette Henry, in her presentation before the House described the policy as a “very important” one which takes into account the ground work done by the department formerly called the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport. She said the National Youth Policy is resolute and innovative and does not address youth solely as a cohort from 14 to 35 years, but rather sees the development of youth as a process that begins in early childhood.
There have been changes to the Youth Policy she noted and explained that the draft policy did not speak to youth being united and involved in decision-making processes, educated, well trained and happy. “These have all been included in this National Youth Policy.”
Minister Henry said her government recognises that no situation is static or sacrosanct and as such, efforts will be made to have the policy reviewed periodically and updated within a five-year period given that there will be emerging issues. “Mr Speaker, I have to point out that this Policy is based on the concept that in order to empower youth, you have to engage in training for employment and training for entrepreneurship. This National Youth Policy caters for development of a National Youth Empowerment Action Plan which will include comprehensive and strategic programmes and projects being implemented.”
She stressed that the policy has its origin in the Constitution of Guyana and as such it is important that all MPs become fully acquainted with the areas addressed by the Policy. The minister said the Policy has been in the making for over a decade and has benefited from several rounds of consultations embracing youth groups, international organisations, educators, employers, trade unionists, religious leaders, and other civil society groups.
“This policy Mr Speaker is one that the young people can claim ownership of- it was built with their input, knowledge and experiences and takes into account contributions at the local, regional and international levels.” As it relates to Youth Development Policy priorities, Minister Henry said there are nine priority areas: identity, empowerment, education, skills development, employment, entrepreneurship, safety, health and well-being, political participation and representation. The policy she added stresses the importance of Sport in youth development. “Young people should be respected, valued and listened to and be supported and encouraged to develop their innate abilities and talents for the benefit of themselves, their communities and their country,” the Junior Minister of Education stated. Additionally, she said the Policy and its programmes are aimed at ensuring that Guyanese youth are functional in an ever evolving global society.
PYO was not consulted
But while Minister Henry outlined the thrust of the policy before her colleagues, Opposition MP Irfaan Ali strongly criticised the policy, noting that it failed to consider the inputs of youth across the country. He used the Progressive Youth Organisation (PYO) an arm of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic as an example. He said the PYO was not consulted on the Policy and as such government has excluded “political consensus.”
“If you want to develop a strategy that is national in nature, you cannot avoid to achieve political consensus…it becomes an important ingredient.”
The Former Minister of Housing and Water said that, that which has been presented to parliamentarians is lofty, but noted that it is flawed as there is no guideline to show an implementation strategy and costing. Stressing the need for costing and implementation to be made available, Ali said it is only through that means can a time frame be ascertained. “No national policy can be framed or implemented in an environment where there is no fiscal space,” he said, noting that Guyana has paid more than half of its international debt and as such, that in and of itself allows fiscal room to invest in youths.
He stressed the need for economic empowerment. “You can’t empower them by these four lines…you need a policy-driven framework.”
Meanwhile, Jermaine Figueira referencing the PYO’s absence from participating in the putting together of the document, said he (Ali) should recognise that all of Guyana’s youth were invited to participate. “It is no secret Mr Speaker that the opposition has a very good record of absenting themselves from invited consultations,” he said.
Figueira said the National Youth Policy is a testimony to Government’s “genuine commitment to the young people of Guyana.” He argued the case that 68 per cent of young people grew up under the PPP/C administration. “A generation that experienced the largest incarceration and extra-judicial killing of their peers…Mr Speaker, we have lost too many of our young people, the best and the brightest, to overseas markets, to crime, drugs, jail and carnage of our roadways.”
The MP said the “greatest exodus of youths” occurred under the former administration and stressed that his Government is committed to transforming and empowering the country’s youth.
Rebutting the governing side’s argument for the passage of the motion, Opposition MP Nigel Dharamlall said he has a “fundamental problem” with the Policy. He said the document speaks only to the problems affecting youths as opposed to youths as a resource.
“We have no clear indication from what is presented before us how what the government intends to achieve out of the Policy how it would be implemented,” said Dharamlall, who posited that only 52 organisations were consulted and a survey comprising 3000 persons was used to come up with the Policy. “The document does not zero in on the needs of our young people… Demographic, identity, cultural and historic backgrounds…the document is too general… onerous and ambiguous,” he said. His argument was supported by his colleague Dr Vindhya Persaud. Government maintained its position through the presentations made by its representatives and stressed that the Policy caters to all aspects of youth development. Approximately 16 presentations were made for and against the motion.