Dear Editor,
Guyanese must reject politicians and political organizations that promote politically motivated crime and violence. To this end, reference is made specifically to the recent inflammatory and callous remarks by a WPA member at an opposition-led public outreach in Buxton.
It is well documented in our political, social, and economic history that our development and prosperity as a country and as a people has been largely stymied by political crimes of the past. Our post-independence struggles are characterised as such. It is worth noting, too, that this phenomenon only occurs when a certain political party is in Government? that is, the PPP/C.
Historic economic context
Since achieving independence in 1966, Guyana’s economic performance was inconsistent. Following a short period of economic growth between 1970 and 1975, Guyana’s accumulated GDP growth between 1976 and 1990 was -32.8% according to 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 (Corral et.al, 2009).
The Political Economy
Prior to 1992, Guyana was a centrally-commanded, socialist-type, dictatorial regime, 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 currently, wherein less than 5% of the local labour force possesses a tertiary-level education. Post 1992, when there was a regime change (the current government having been elected through free and fair elections), and 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’s) 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 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 spiralled out of control, and politically- motivated disruptions.
> 2004–2008: unrests, politically-motivated disruptions
> 2008–2012: Lusignan, Lindo Creek, Bartica massacres, violence erupted when protestors blocked the Wismar-Mackenzie 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, crime wave, unrest, and disruption, and until the No Confidence (NCM) motion that was brought against the former Government in December 2018, the former Government failed to implement any major development projects despite expending over $1.2 trillion in five years. Much of this was spent on current/consumption or non-productive expenditure.
Additionally, almost every national election in the 1990s and early 2000s, ensuing the elections results/outcome, violence and unrest erupted, which were all fuelled by the Opposition. These events occurred in 1992, 1997 and in 2001. The only elections period that did not ensue in violence were 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 make – and to a large extent led to making – the State becoming dysfunctional and ungovernable.
Since Guyana transitioned to a market economy, Guyana suffered from 17+ years of political instability characterised as politically motivated disruption, unrest, violence, and crime.
Consequently, an entire generation of people has been deprived of the development taking place now that ought to have already been achieved in the last decade.
Hence, we cannot allow another generation to be so deprived of the national prosperity being pursued for another decade or two by allowing the irrelevant and mischievous fossils of the past to destabilise the country.
Noteworthily, however, the (current) Government (at that time) demonstrated resilience, which aided the achievement of the following as one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere, to a GDP of US$4 billion by the end of 2020 from US$300 million in 1992, representing 1200% 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% from a position of more than 600% in 1992.
> Total public debt service to revenue ratio came down to 30% of revenue from a position of more than 150%.
> More than 60% of the population lifted out of poverty, and eradication of extreme poverty.
> By the time there was a regime change in 2015, the former Government inherited approximately $100 billion in liquid cash in the Bank of Guyana. And by the time they left office in 2020 (having lost the elections), there was $100 billion overdraft/deficit in the Government deposit accounts, signalling the return of a downward/regressive trajectory of the economy by the former Government.
Guyana is at a major crossroads for the first time in its post-Independence history. Political instability can directly hurt the economy by affecting the investment decisions of firms. It takes time for firms to make the investment decisions, especially the manufacturing firms. In unstable political environments, it is very difficult to determine the net present value of an investment, as there are many uncertainties regarding social conditions, which make it impossible to determine the rate of return. Further, the expectations on the future policy and financial return depend very much on general socio and macro-economic conditions. If the expectation is dim in the future, then development in the economic sector is almost impossible for any country.
I therefore urge our fellow Guyanese and the political leaders across the spectrum to exercise greater care and responsibility in their public utterances, and avoid inflammatory remarks at all costs, given the potential ramifications of such as described herein.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Bhagwandin
