A COUNTRY’S evolution is not premised only on what happens within its borders, but is also influenced by activities within the international community.

Growth and development, human, technological and otherwise, require adapting to the changes within and without our borders in order to maintain our place among progressive nations.

When Guyana achieved nationhood in the 20th Century, there began a process not only for it to be respected in the international community for its political leadership, but also to forge a nation out of diversity to advance our economic well-being, aiming towards self-sufficiency and competing in the external markets which were considered pivotal to growth and development.

A major aspect of the nation’s political leadership was our role in the liberation struggle of South Africa, which has earned the nation a place of pride on the international stage. As a new nation, whose people emerged out of systems of domination; slavery, indentureship and colonization, sitting on the sideline in the presence of another system of oppression (Apartheid) came at risk of being seen as isolationist, or supporting a competing world view that this form of domination was acceptable.

20th Century Guyana saw a spirit of self-determination, led by the trade union and political parties, with the support of the citizens. In the immediate post-independence period, a people led by the government embarked on a programme to control the commanding heights of their economy. This took the approach of embracing the principle of cooperative socialism in making full use of our natural resources, harnessing the people’s ingenuity, and bringing value-added to primary products.

In the 1970s, increases in oil prices sent ripples through the global economy, and small and heavily oil-dependent societies like ours found it difficult to cushion the shock. In responding to this turn of events, Government intensified its self-sufficiency programme, making greater push and call to produce, eat and buy local. This saw the emergence of value-added products such as rice, cassava and plantain flour; salted fish; fruit preserves; the pushing of the local manufacturing for export; improvement in the timber industry; the assembling of radios, stereos, refrigerators and freezers, motor vehicles (the Tapir), bicycles (the Caloi), just to name a few of them.

Admittedly, there were reservations in pursuing the self-sufficiency path; and in our hyper-racial society, political mileage was engendered. It was felt that items were being restricted to punish a certain section of society, even though all Guyanese relied on the use of the same products in the making of various dishes, which, by extension, meant that any decision impacted and affected all.

In the 21st Century, the CARICOM Food Import Bill is in excess of US$4B per year. Had Guyana pursued and stuck to the self-reliance trajectory, engaging in research and development, it would not only have reduced its bill, but would have been a significant supplier to its regional counterparts.

Outside of diverting scarce foreign resources to other more-needed areas, and earning same through exportation, employment and economic opportunities would have expanded for its citizens, impacting positively on the nation’s Human Development Index. Experts continue to express concerns about the region’s ability to sustain this Bill because of the poor quality of food imported and its impact on health and longevity. Guyana could have been a major source in ameliorating these issues.

In the 21st Century, as politicians continue to squabble, the people remain the best demonstration of what working together can achieve, even though there are moments of conflict and polarisation. It is a well-known fact that during the election season, there are conflicts and avoidance of the political other. Equally, when the so-called “silly season” is over, most converge around common issues to ensure their well-being. For instance, in the markets, though vendors of diverse backgrounds would compete for the attention of the same buyers, it is not unusual to see a vendor who does not have a particular item directing a buyer to another vendor who has it, or even going over to that vendor and getting the item for the buyer. Even as members of this group compete among themselves for the dollar, the camaraderie among them is informed by a common interest and sense that in looking out for the other, the other will look out for the one. And this has been proven to their common interest. Such experiences exemplify who we are as a people, yet this characteristic is lacking in our politics, outside of collective personal interest and social events. In the 21st Century, the masses are demonstrating the type of behaviour they would like to see in their politicians, and the latter should pay heed.