Dear Editor,

THE recent display of disruptive and inciteful behaviour by the political Opposition is concerning, yet, not surprising. I refer specifically to the incident where an Opposition Member of Parliament sought to block a sitting minister of the government from tending to the needs of the people.

Reference is also made to another recent incident involving the Opposition Leader, where he sought to instigate the people of Mocha to believe that the government is taking lands that rightfully belong to them; lands he is referring to as their ancestral lands, and that they must not allow the government to reclaim these lands.

These are lands, as I understand it, that the government may have to reclaim to advance the development of new roads and other public infrastructure (in a subsequent article, I will demonstrate the benefits and the bigger picture of the government’s development agenda, including how the reclamation of these lands to facilitate development will also benefit the people at the community level, both directly and indirectly).

Sufficing to say that these recent maneuvers by the political Opposition are nothing but different strategies to derail the development of the country. There is an abundance of historic empirical evidence available that suggests this is the track record of the Opposition; that is, blocking development at all costs. But in the end, it is the entire population of a country that suffers.
Editor, hereunder outlined, I present some of these historic empirical evidence to corroborate my argument.

HISTORIC ECONOMIC CONTEXT
Since achieving independence from Great Britain in 1966, Guyana’s economic performance has been inconsistent. Following a short period of economic growth between 1970 and 1975, Guyana’s accumulated GDP growth between 1976 and 1990 was -32.8 per cent, according to the UN’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. This economic inconsistency persisted into recent years, which presents average GDP growth for Guyana compared with averages for the Latin America region. Source: (Corral et.al, 2009).

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY
Prior to 1992, Guyana was a centrally command, socialist type dictatorial regime, with an economic system that plunged Guyana into bankruptcy, thus leading to economic and social devastation. During this era, thousands of Guyanese fled the country in search of better opportunities elsewhere. This, by and large, explains the massive human capital deficit the country has, wherein less than five per cent of the local labour force possess a tertiary level education.

Post 1992, when there was a regime change (the current government having been elected through a free and fair elections and there being the restoration of democracy), the economy at the time had just begun its transition to a free market economy, inter alia, the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) economic reform programme.

From 1992 – 2014, Guyana suffered many periods, short and long in some cases, of political instability which largely stymied the country’s development and ability to achieve its true economic potential.

Periods of Political Instability
* 1992 – 1997: There was a short period of street protests and violence after having restored democracy, following which the economy took off (short period of stability).

* 1997 – 2001: Prolonged street protests and disruption.

* 2002 – 2003: Prison break, crime wave spiraled out of control and politically motivated disruptions.

* 2004 – 2008: Unrests, politically motivated disruptions

* 2008 – 2012: Lusignan, Lindo Creek, Bartica massacre, violence erupted when protestors blocked the Wismar Mckenzie Bridge.

* 2011 – 2014: For the first time, a new political dispensation emerged following the 2011 elections where the government was a minority government, and the political Opposition controlled the National Assembly having had a one seat majority. Under this dispensation, it was difficult for the government to obtain budget approvals, many major development projects were disapproved by the Opposition controlled National Assembly. As a result, snap elections were held in 2015 which resulted in a win for the Opposition.

* 2015 – 2020: Though this period was relatively stable–that is, no violence, major crime wave, unrest, and disruption until the No Confidence (NCM) motion that was brought against the former government in December 2018– the former APNU+AFC government failed to implement any major development projects despite expending over $1.2 trillion in five years. Much of this was expended on current/consumption or non-productive expenditure.

Additionally, almost every national elections in the 1990s and early 2000s – after the elections results/outcome, violence and unrest erupted which were all fueled by the Opposition. These events occurred in 1992, 1997 and in 2001. The only elections that did not end with violence were those in 2006, 2011 and 2015. There is a rich body of academic literature on Guyana’s political and economic history which confirmed empirically that these periods of political instability were designed to, and to a large extent, lead to the State becoming dysfunctional and ungovernable.

Against these backgrounds, out of 29 years (1992-2021) since Guyana transitioned to a free market economy, there were several periods of political instability that hindered the country’s development, having transitioned out of a bankrupt State. Thus, with all those years of instability combined, Guyana suffered from 17 years of political instability characterised as politically motivated disruption, unrest, violence, and crime.

In addition, despite having four years of “stability” (2015 – 2019), inter alia, a regime change, for the first time there was some amount of stability but with no substantive development and progress. These, altogether, gave rise to a total of some 21 years of stymied and disrupted progress and development of Guyana albeit the latter was due to, arguably and evidently, imprudent fiscal and public financial management.

Despite the challenging political landscape described above, the government at the time (PPP/C) nonetheless managed to achieve the following:

> From 1992 – 2014 (22 years) since Guyana transitioned to a free market economy and restoration of democracy, the then governments only had five years of stability out of 22 years in power in which Guyana moved from a bankrupt State, regarded as one of the poorest country in the western hemisphere, to a GDP of US$4 billion by the end of 2020 from US$300 million in 1992, representing 1,200 per cent growth in GDP, or 13 times 1992 GDP,

> Per capita income of US$5,000 from less than US$300,

> Debt to GDP ratio is now less than 50 per cent from a position of more than 600 per cent in 1992,

> Total public debt service to revenue ratio came down to 30 per cent of revenue from a position of more than 150 per cent,

> More than 60 per cent of the population lifted out of poverty,

> By the time there was a regime change in 2015, that government inherited about $100 billion in liquid cash in the Bank of Guyana and by the time they left office in 2020, there was $147 billion overdraft/deficit in those accounts.
Editor, the Opposition’s track record as demonstrated herein, speaks for itself. Guyanese, therefore, must not allow the Opposition to obstruct, block and stymie the country’s progressive development.

Yours faithfully,
Joel Bhagwandin
Director
Business Intelligence & Analytics | Financial and Economic Analysis
SPHEREX Professional Services Inc. | JB Consultancy & Associates