By Marlon Bristol
FREEDOM of speech seems to be alive and kicking. So much so that especially the young generation is vocal on almost every development issue that comes into the public domain, commendable I must say. We are now experiencing public lectures by academics from the university on current and topical issues, where are the youngsters researching and voicing there? Anyway!

Our public debate seems to be mostly an issue for social media, of course, this is part of the fad associated with the younger generation. More generally, there seems to be a battle to avoid intergenerational irresponsibility, and fairly so. But, what is a bit perplexing, is that every initiative taken is criticised, most without constructive thought or balanced opinions and I guess who should expect such in a politically divisive country, we can’t agree to disagree it seems.

I asked myself if this is based on a general lack of ‘under-standing’ or interest in national and developmental issues? I am not sure, but when I saw boldly advertised in some newspapers the feelings of a faction of Guyanese with the audacity to tell the world ‘Go-invest elsewhere,’ thoughts of what I heard and read of in the past came flashing through my mind. I have heard stories of the burning of canefields, undermining the tax system and economy through illicit trade and agriculture.

I have heard that the Guyana National Services at one time was delivering on agriculture, while farmers downed arms, among other horror stories, for which this gesture made me believe this was really true. In the end, Guyana and domiciled Guyanese languished behind, now asking themselves if this oil blessing is a curse? Could you imagine!

Everything is criticised, from the cleaning of the city in which we dwell, to who is the right or wrong person for a political and administrative position. Keeping in mind that this is the constitutional purview given to an elected government. Of course, criticisms are good when they are constructive, since issues such as social inequality, and the depth of poverty can be amplified in the face of apathy.

And, as we have seen growth in the 1990s expanded income inequality, not reduce it as was previously reflected – the rich got richer and the poor poorer. This was exactly our confusion between what the data was saying and what we were noticing in everyday life. The measure used was a proxy, but that little omission was cause for wonder. Most recently, the fit and proper debate appears to be a quasi-intellectual discourse on gerontology at best, not sure what is constructive about that, though adamantly the young generation lay genuine concerns about their stake in the present and future.

From where I see it, criticisms seem to be most present from those who supported the incumbent, on all the issues engulfing this nation, as though they were all to be solved by now. We are in a now mentality. What is even more interesting is that a contraction in informality that provided sustenance for crime and corruption we were seemingly against not so long ago is frowned upon now. It is as if we only should see cleaned cities exist in the places we visit, but we are comfortable to live in sordidness.

It appears that there should be no pain to gain; we should not dream of a good life (fact or fiction), because life for us must always be a hustle, and bustle. We seemed to have stripped ourselves of every fabric of imagination and hope to despair even in the face of a new oil economy. Where is the appreciation that recognises that when you are in office your role is to navigate the rules, constraints, and commitment to delivering, to generate the needs and expectations of all the people preferences, all at once.

It is clear that we want to hear that all is well, as though if we were to hear the truth, the parochial saying ‘we done play’ applies. In essence, it is clear that we prefer to be put in a ‘one-two’, until that thing hits the fan. I even dare to say, that equally, those who govern needs support and encouragement in the very way we do, and inspiration was never a one-way street. I know I sound like an incumbent sympathiser, and my views can only be interpreted in political affiliation terms or that of race. But when are we really going to rise above our prejudices for the greater good? Put into action the seemingly love and care we purport to all share for Guyana.

Where is the love that transcends racial, political and other impediments that we know hinder equitable progress in Guyana? Do we really love Guyana and want everyone to progress? From what seems to be a reality is that we prefer policy to be inimical to the progress of all. As we proceed, it seems to me that people only love Guyana if their ideas and their politics are the order of the day; otherwise, there is no end of negative rhetoric, like ‘Go-Invest elsewhere’. At this pace what is next, ‘do not recognise’ Guyana, like yesteryear South Africa and Apartheid? Are we really that ‘loving’ of country and people? I am probably naïve, but surely not alone.

As a person who did some research on migration in a small-state context, the largest possibility of our generation being overlooked does not emanate from the local situation (or threat as it might be perceived) but naturally from the influx of skills and talent that the oil economy will engender, as a highly skilled sector. People with skills, experience, and knowhow will come. Lest we forget, at minimum a regional framework already exists in the CSME for free movement of skills etc.

The same CSME free movement regime we previously criticised for not allowing Guyanese to move freely for the purpose of work. Hopefully, we do not cry foul play as the situation that occurred with the bourgeoning of the .com (internet) era, in which black people did not benefit at the beginning in the USA. It would seem to me that a sense of entitlement comes from not only being Guyanese but, reflecting on our history, whose government is in office and what you should get without pains for gains.

Now that I am tired ranting, it is still safe to say, I hope, the past tense of the generation that might ‘lose’ still has time in the present, but who in the class room is putting their hands up? Noticeably, some young people are gradually ‘coming to front’. I would like to ask the question: is there an expectation that the chosen ones are to be picked and anointed? Where in our history is this philosophy manifest?

If we go back to the early days and the fight for betterment of the working class, we would notice both President Burnham and President Jagan worked their way to public life and leadership in every capacity and positions held, and this has been the real legacy of those in the class room with an opinion that put up their hands.

(Disclaimer: These views are that of the author and do not reflect any position of the Government of Guyana.)