IT is not easy to reach consensus on almost anything of importance to the nation. This is due in no small way to the political polarisation that had characterised our body-politic ever since the split of the PPP in 1955, when anything, however well-meaning and in the best national interest were not subjected to opposition by the People’s National Congress (PNC).

The records will show that the PNC was opposed to lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 as proposed by the PPP. It teamed up with the then United Force to oppose the Kaldor Budget in 1962 which was crafted by the PPP Government to generate more money for national development. That was necessary because of the refusal of several western countries to render developmental assistance to the country because of ideological reasons. On the 31 January 1962, the PPP Government introduced in the House of Assembly a budget to raise money needed for the payment of wages and salaries. The budget was also aimed at strengthening the country’s financial position and more specifically to raise money to finance an industrialisation programme to help solve the urban unemployment problem. The budget proposals were based on the recommendations of Cambridge-educated economist and tax consultant Nicholas Kaldor whose services had been obtained by the United Nations. Kaldor had advised the governments of India, Ghana and several other developing countries on the restructuring of their tax systems aimed at preventing the unnecessary outflow of capital; blocking loopholes in the tax system, preventing the evasion of tax payments and improving the balance of payment position. The budget won approval in many circles including the New York Times which, in an editorial, described the budget as ‘courageous and economically sound.’

Despite such praise for the budget, it was opposed by the political opposition which claimed that the budget was ‘anti-working class and communistic’. A series of protest actions and politically motivated strikes took place which culminated in burning and looting of several businesses in Georgetown, referred to as ‘Black Friday’.

The point in going back to our political history is simply to make the point that the PNC has had a history of opposing legislative measures, however progressive and in the national interest with the sole aim of scoring cheap political points regardless of the consequences it could have on the overall national good. More recently, it opposed, and when in office, aborted the Amaila Falls Hydro-electric project which, by now, would have been at an advanced stage of completion if not fully operational and which would have resulted in cleaner, reliable and cheaper energy to consumers and for manufacturing. It jettisoned the construction of the Specialty Hospital, and even against the recommendations  of its own Committee set up to examine the future prospects of sugar, closed down a number of grinding sugar estates with disastrous consequences to the workers, their families and to the economy as a whole.

Despite assurances by President Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali that the country’s oil revenues will be subjected to both pre and post-parliamentary scrutiny, the political opposition continues to raise all manner of objections to the proposed National Resource Fund (NRF) legislation. Interestingly, most, if not all of the demands made by opposition elements are already embedded in the proposed legislation, which raises some serious issues as to their true motivations. Sadly, there are some civil society groups that seem to find some common ground with the APNU+AFC political opposition without seemingly taking time to study the proposed legislation in its entirety and its full ramifications.

Take for example the issue of withdrawals from the fund. There are built-in mechanisms which provide for parliamentary debate and approval before any withdrawals could take place. There are also provisions for projects and programmes funded by the oil revenues to be investigated and scrutinised by the Office of the Auditor General and placed before the National Assembly by way of an audited report which will then be subjected to further scrutiny at the level of the Public Account Committee (PAC).

Further, the utilisation of withdrawals from the fund are not envisaged to be done at the whims or fancies of the subject minister of any other government functionary but specifically to finance programmes and projects to accelerate a number of developmental projects, more particularly those in the non-oil sectors such as health, education, infrastructure and tourism, among others.

No less substantial is the fact that the proposed legislation seeks to remedy deficiencies in the existing legislation which was hastily put together by the then unconstitutional and illegitimate APNU+AFC regime without inputs from key stakeholders including that of the then PPP/C opposition party.

The Natural Resource Bill, without any doubt, is an advance over what obtained previously and, all things being equal should have an easy passage in the National Assembly. The hard fact is that the political opposition seems bent on making life difficult for the ruling party and are prepared, even against the best interest of the Guyanese people to misrepresent the facts and stand in the way of progress and national development.