A half-year ago, repeating the need for a governmental stimulus of the economy, we discussed in this space the latter’s evident choice between “guns and butter”. The phrase “guns or butter” entered the lexicon as a trope for signalling the tendency of some political leaders to focus their energies and their nation’s spending on the military (guns), rather than on the needs of the civilian population (butter). The Nazi-militarised Government was particularly fond of the phrase, as its officials scoffed at the production of “butter”. It entered economics as the classic model of a “production-possibility frontier” of a nation having to choose between two goods.
At that time, President Granger announced a “five pillar” plan to reinvigorate the Defence Force versus his studied silence on a plan to stimulate the nose-diving economy. The five pillars of the plan were: personnel, infrastructure, equipment, readiness and morale. The rationale offered by the President for the increased military spending was the threat on our borders posed by Suriname on the east and Venezuela on the west. Yet, the then Chief of Staff of the Guyana Defence Force, Brigadier Mark Philips, had just assured the nation that our present forces were adequate to defend any threats from Venezuela, and had launched in Georgetown an impressive display of our military might.
With the GDF then at about half its authorised strength, the plan to bring back the Force to its full capacity plus re-launch the atrophied reserve force which used to be called the People’s Militia and staff it with its full complement will obviously cause the wage bill to rise precipitously. When the equipment needs are factored in, the present annual spending on the entity, estimated at about $600M will have to be at least doubled.
When the choice is between guns or butter, a country can end up in a no-win situation. After WWII, the Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower became President of the USA, which had become the greatest power on the planet. Having to deal with that choice, he declared, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”
But the choice does not have to be “guns or butter”; it can be changed to “guns and butter”. While this newspaper is fully supportive of the need to revive and maintain a force that can adequately defend our borders, we have to be realistic to appreciate that even a weakened Venezuela, for instance, can deliver a much bigger bang with their bucks. It therefore becomes even more urgent for our Government to spend a commensurate amount of time to halt the slide of our economy and initiate policies that can create double-digit growth rates to push our surpluses. We would then be in a position to support a larger Defence Force without the strain that would be caused in the present strained circumstances.
We note the recent acknowledgement of Finance Minister Winston Jordan of the need for a stimulus package to reverse the slide of the economy, but urge the Government – as we did six months ago – not to focus solely on the expenditure side of the balance sheet. Rather than criticising the business community for not taking risks, Government must use the panoply of tools at its disposal to reduce – or allow the business community to reduce – those risks.
The liberalisation of the economy was not meant to be confined to the external trading regime only, but also to the internal investment environment. We repeat our call to the Government: “Work with the business community to collaborate on ways to generate more income for the country. In this way, we can have the safety of a prosperous populace protected by well-paid security personnel.”
