I think many may scoff at my assessment of the current regime and to that I say that we should, as citizens, discuss and criticise issues that are of national importance and refrain from inflammatory remarks and personal attacks. I believe we should press Government to deliver, to implement promised changes, to reinforce why they are there and what is expected from them. The Government of the day must face the music or step down. Business cannot not be as usual.
In my years of reading and writing on Guyanese politics, no other regime in post-independence Guyana has been so hamstrung and handicapped by its own design to provide the basics to its citizens – protection from wanton crime, job opportunities to the youths, efficient public sector services, incentives for domestic and foreign investments, and fewer taxes – than the APNU/AFC coalition.
The Coalition has delivered in some areas, such as providing better social services for school children, but it cannot prove that things have gotten better since it slipped into power.
On the face of it, the regime seems to be locked in a zero sum game in which the promotion of loyal ideas means the negation of others. I will be guilty of faux pas of serious heights if I do not admit that if not for partisan politics, Guyana would have been a better country than it is right now. I argue, however, that the retention of good policies and projects from previous governments is not a national embarrassment, but a sign of good governance. One national project that comes readily to mind is the Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project, and if pursued, can potentially move Guyana to towards sustainable electricity generation. The project can also be a unique opportunity for the political divide to come together and introduce the sort of infrastructural development so needed in the energy sector to which Guyanese have been yearning for. Cheaper electricity translates into lesser financial burdens.
It is a sad disclosure that Guyana has reached this point of irreversible divisions amongst themselves after 50 years of independence. Some may argue that the sad state of affairs is a result of centuries of colonialism. By the same token, however, some of our problems are home-grown. The obvious problem is that there are too many political square pegs in round holes who see political office for personal gains, rather than serving public interest wholeheartedly.
Typically, Guyanese politicians enter in politics, but are clueless about politics. While it is encouraging that Guyanese politicians may come from all walks of life, in a sense that they can represent various interests, this opportunity can easily be cancelled out because they do not generally have a good grasp of how Government should function and how public policies should be developed to benefit the nation. They know more about party loyalty and how to be popular among voters. I call this behaviour patronymic politics.
What is also sad about this stationary and stabled situation is that our politicians have not learned from 50 years of continuous mistakes. The mistakes are there to be gleaned so that lessons can be learned to avoid future mistakes. The common thought and approach to addressing mistakes is to go back to the drawing board and assess the magnitude and impact of the mistake and apply strategies for improvement, rather than pointing the finger at someone else or acting as if mistakes did not happen.
The season for the above political attitude and behaviour is over. We cannot wait until hell freezes over for promised good governance from both sides of political divide. New approaches to leadership must be explored if we have good intentions in moving forward.
I argue for raising the spectre of expectations as to what Government should be. The idea of good governance is: (a) not only to maintain the traditions of democracy, but to contribute to it in its own setting; (b) not only to restore creditability, but to deliver in most trying and troubling times; (c) not to be cackled by old loyalties, but the ability to weave political philosophy with intellectualism to instil in the public that it is guided by brains not brass, by decency not demonic ways.
I argue that the public has a right to know where and how their taxes are being spent at a time when they are overtaxed. This should not be a rude awakening to our politicians.
I propose that the President must demonstrate more spine in dealing with corrupt politicians. Instead of reshuffling and redistributing politicians for bad behaviour, why not dismiss them? The President will be applauded for the latter action as a game changer, rather than a cool operator.
I urge that the public must no longer hang its hopes on what politicians tell them or trust its own instincts, but be more involved in scrutinising who will lead them to wipe incompetence and dishonesty, the twin woes of political behaviour. Serving politicians who want to continue the life of politics must explain why they were unable to deliver and why were they missing in action when they were most needed. These ideas might nudge us closer to good governance, I espouse. ([email protected])
