Saturday, Nov 12, was “International Youth Day”; and, as usual, the UN, which launched the Day in 1999, announced a “Theme” for this year’s observation: “Youth building peace”.
But the UN had long espoused a larger role for youths in the affairs of their country and, indeed, the world towards the promotion of “peace”. In 1965, one year before we achieved independence under a Prime Minister who was a “youth” at only 32 years old, the organisation endorsed the “Declaration on the Promotion among Youth of the Ideals of Peace, Mutual Respect and Understanding between Peoples.”
But before youths can build peace, they have to be assured that not only are their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter are met, but they would be equipped with the basic accoutrements that are needed to cope in today’s globalised world.
In 1995, thirty years after their initial declaration, the UN acknowledged the foregoing observation when they adopted an international strategy—the “World Programme of Action for Youth” (WPAY) to the Year 2000 and Beyond — which provided a policy framework and practical guidelines for empowering youths.
By that time, a new Government, led by the PPP, had replaced the PNC, which had brought Guyana and its youths to their knees, after every facet of the society and economy had been destroyed between 1966 and 1992. Ten priority areas were identified as needing to be addressed: Attainment of an educational level commensurate with their aspirations; Access to employment opportunities equal to their abilities; Food and nutrition adequate for full participation in the life of society; A physical and social environment that promotes good health, offers protection from disease and addiction, and is free from all types of violence; Human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language, religion, or any other form of discrimination; Participation in decision-making processes; Places and facilities for cultural, recreational, and sports activities to improve the living standards of young people in both rural and urban areas.
While there were five additional areas for intervention identified in the new millennium, the first two of the above ten can serve as a good measuring rod, to evaluate if Guyana has done the minimum for its youths before demanding they play roles in “peace building”. While the PNC might have been well intentioned in promising “free education” from nursery to university, by the end of their rigged tenure, in 1992, all educational institutions had been destroyed, and most graduates of UG had migrated.
The PPP unquestionably did much to rebuild the educational institutions, but Guyana still has a far way to go before our youths can successfully navigate the global marketplace. One of the constraints towards enticing youths is the lack of employment opportunities, which was the second factor that the UN identified as needing to be addressed. It noted: “Every State should promote the goal of full employment as a basic priority of its economic and social policies, giving special attention to youth employment. They should also take measures to eliminate the economic exploitation of children;
If effective solutions are not found, the cost to society would be much higher in the long run. Unemployment creates a wide range of social ills, and young people are particularly susceptible to its damaging effects: the lack of skills, low self-esteem, marginalization, impoverishment, and the wasting of an enormous human resource.”
Two years ago, the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) announced in a report, “Youth are our Future: The Imperative of Youth Employment for Sustainable Development,” there was a 40% unemployment rate among Guyanese youths. The reasons submitted for the startling figure emphasise the need for the present Government to implement the policies adumbrated by the UN more than two decades ago:
Lack of relevant skills; lack of experience; lack of knowledge of vacancies; limited opportunities due to health status or disability, location (i.e. rural location or general lack of transport options); stigma and discrimination due to age, ethnicity, criminal record, gender, motherhood and poverty.
