at a minimum, the tremendous effort of the Government to commemorate the 50th anniversary of our independence from the Britain in such a spectacular fashion, has stirred debate at many levels on the import and reality of that independence. In 1966, Guyana had just emerged from two years of civil strife between 1962-1964 that left society in a very fragile state, both politically and socially.
Guyana and its political parties – the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), the People’s National Congress (PNC) and the United Force (UF), were merely pawns in the struggle between the US and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) for the dominance of their competing ideologies. Ironically, both ideologies were centred on what was the best method to develop the economies of “backward” countries, yet the struggle would cripple some of those same countries, such as Guyana. Over the next 50 years, Guyana adopted elements of both ideologies in its drive to remove the shackles of underdevelopment imposed by colonialism. In that system, Guyana was governed to provide raw materials for the “mother country” to be transformed and shipped back, at many times the original price. The terms of trade was only one of the factors that ensured Guyana remained poor.
But Guyana also inherited another, possibly even greater impediment to growth and development during the 1960s riots. These widened the ethnic divisions created when successive waves of immigrants from different countries and cultures were brought in after 1834 to substitute the freed African slaves. What must be emphasised is Guyanese on their own volition did not initiate violence against each other, but rather only after instigated and funded by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
It is very unfortunate that the efforts to pull Guyanese out of the colonial rut of underdevelopment all failed for reasons that were not all due to strategic mistakes of the Government of the day. For instance, the “oil crisis” of the 1970s which skyrocketed oil prices, coincided with the PNC’s attempt to break with the prior capitalist/colonial order and introduce “cooperative socialism” as a strategy of development. Borrowing to pay for the oil and also to improve infrastructure combined to saddle the country with an unsustainable debt burden. The consequent destruction of the economy precipitated even more intense competition between the ethnic groups for resources that were now even scarcer, creating an ever deepening spiral of poverty.
When the PPP replaced the PNC in 1992 after 28 years, the USSR had disintegrated and its socialist model of development had been discredited. The PPP were able to have most of the inherited debt written off but were now shackled with the US backed “neo-liberal” ideology of development. This model insisted on “privatisation” of the 80 per cent of the economy that the PNC had nationalised; the “stabilisation” of the macro-economic indicators such as inflation and budgetary deficits and the liberalisation of the financial sector as well as the trade regime.
While the economy was turned around and produced growth rates of approximately five per cent per annum over the last decade, this was insufficient for Guyana to even catch up with its partners in the Caribbean Community (Caricom), much less the developed economies. The cleavages in political mobilisation was refracted in the evaluation of the PPP Government as not being “inclusive” enough by members outside its transitional base.
With the change in Government last year, the new APNU/AFC Government raised great expectations that it would work to address the twin obstacles to a more stable Guyana: the need for higher rates of economic growth and its connected ethnic divisions. Unfortunately, while it has commendably articulated a need for “social cohesion”, its concrete actions in this regard and also its handling of the economy have raised more questions than answers.
This newspaper would like to wish all Guyanese a happy 50th Independence Anniversary and suggest that the Government and the Opposition use the occasion to begin collaboration on addressing our country’s challenges.
