Do Manifestos Mean Anything to the Electorate?

by Dr. Christopher A. Johnson

Since the dawn of democracy, there has been an increasing emphasis on detailing the parameters of policies and programs to benefit global electorate- societies. Historically, politics was limited to power brokers and financiers who sponsored candidates or political parties and for the most part; citizens did not really account for anything much, except for being circumscribed as symbolic statistics. At election time, ‘Citizen Public’ was only as important as his/her vote could attest or allow, after which it was business as usual. In modern times this attitude has changed somewhat, although there are instances where the former situation persists.

According to one commentator, “What the 21st century has brought, though, is an astonishing array of alternative, quasi-alternative and quasi-establishment manifestos, platforms, agendas, position papers, values statements, declarations of corporate social responsibility, etc. Many contain proposals that any great radical middle manifesto could hardly do without.”

However, we live in different times and even when the masses may appear misguided; they should not be underestimated, particularly when they now have access to new knowledge and communications technology. Events in North America, the Middle East and the Asian peninsula are indicative of how technology has shaped the thinking of large populations in nation states in emerging democracies.

In these times, quite rightly, political parties of all descriptions are tested for their durability to deliver on promises made to supporters and eligible voters alike. It is important that Political Manifestos are seen not only as instruments of or for electioneering, but as credible efforts towards ensuring that citizens have the opportunity to affect changes to societies’ general well-being. In a previous article, we stressed the importance of recognising the value of citizens’ aspirations, needs and general expectations in the democratic scheme of things.

Significance of Manifestos

So, what is the real significance of Political Manifestos if the average citizen feels powerless and disadvantaged by the system? What difference can they make to modern political cultures? Is there any real value to be gained from them and how reasonably beneficial are they to a confused electorate? What ingredients should they embody?

There are several schools of thought on this issue, but a major wrestling point is, the Politician versus the Citizen, both of whom are critical to the equation of change. One is expected to deliver on `promises’ whether real or imagined, while the other is expected to respond positively by ticking the right box on Election Day. So you have in reality, a mirrored perception and a marked symbolism which again, carries the weight of expectation with respect to the rivalry of political candidates and the decisive outcome of voters who in effect, always have the final say in this electoral tussle.

Therefore, how can political parties communicate their message in an atmosphere of doubt and indecision? How can voters respond to political candidates whose ideology is unresponsive, let alone, inconsistent, with the norms of civilised society? The answer lies in our original view that politicians and the electorate share much in common –for one thing, they are part of whole societies and do have, in spite of differences, shared expectations. Suppose on Election Day there is a low voter-turnout, there is bound to be concerns expressed by political parties and constituents alike. They might both feel terribly disenfranchised by a system they believe and share, even when it comes to the spoils. The system might be flawless, but voters may think otherwise and their resultant actions could reflect volumes of the actual political system versus the harsh realties on the ground.

In traditional liberal democracies where politics is a highly competitive affair and where it is practically `open season’ for politicians, parties contest for a range of `product mixes’ such as content, emotions, guarantees, presentation and style. Messages are channelled through different communications media, including live debates, where policy issues are discussed. Of note, some politicians are so cavalier that they take the electorate for granted by appealing more to `veneer politics’ (artificial view of reality) rather than `content analysis politics.’

It is the responsibility of every political party, through its leadership, to `sell’ effectively, its political, economic and social `products’ and maintain a line of consistency throughout election campaigns. Deviation from the norm should be fully explained and an alternative should be presented to clear all reasonable doubt. Is this really possible in a game where the rules are broken by default – when candidates, in an effort to score cheap political points, become embroiled with personality politics? Here is where the process of electioneering can lose its moral compass and the Manifesto could be perceived an expedient empty slogan.

Electioneering Techniques

Quite understandably, the season of elections is demonstrably passionate and beliefs are usually misjudged by a predication of past mistakes and what the electorate may judge in the form of a question – `should we vote for the lesser of the two evils?’ Yet, citizens do deserve better than parties indulging in a contest of historic bashing and ideological sloganeering. If indeed, a Manifesto represents a sales document and a marketing tool for political parties to advocate real policy change, then its authors should reflect a high level of professionalism in the promotion and endorsement of this document, bearing in mind, the underlying message it contains for all voters.

In addition, the success or failure of a Manifesto depends largely on the method used to convince the electorate and/or any other justification that citizens may have for not responding affirmatively to what the Manifesto seeks to promote. Here are a few suggested techniques that might be useful to the publication and dissemination of Political Manifestos to a modern, enlightened and sophisticated electorate.

• Firstly, the party in question should assemble a group of policy experts on key disciplines to discuss with the hierarchy, polices to be crafted. There should be a pre-examination of all experts not necessarily to determine their ideological or political `purity,’ but to gauge their interest towards the development ethos. Each expert should state what he/she could bring to the table by way of policy knowledge and experience based on the party’s mission.
• Secondly, having ensured that the history of the party is clearly defined, a Statement of Principles should be formulated reflecting the hopes and aspirations of parties and the electorate – collective or consensus views tend to appeal to voters, especially the undecided or the floating ones. Such statement should reflect the underlying philosophy of parties’ role as functional democratic entities and should set a clear timeframe of governance with an explanation of partnership working all-round. For instance, a Statement of Principles Statement may thus read:

“The………Party will govern the country over the next Parliament within a sustainable democratic framework, by working in partnership with a variety of public institutions, private agencies and civic organizations, to improve the quality of life and general well-being of citizens irrespective of their class, education, ethnicity, religion and any other persuasion.”

• Thirdly, there must be clear objectives set out in the Manifesto since these will show the serious intention of the party in question. Effectively, aims and objectives are integral to the target portfolios of political parties and thus setting clear objectives is vital to communicating a message that is unambiguous, non-partisan and not patronising either. Above all, objectives should be reachable, realistic and targetable and if they are dubious, the integrity of the party could be brought into disrepute. Parties contesting elections may enshrine in their Manifestos the need to modernise the security forces; strengthen ties with allies and use diplomacy to resolve protracted conflicts; encourage and stimulate political and economic freedom in remote areas of the country; and to promote responsibility for citizens to play a unique role in world peace and stable co-existence.

• Fourthly, after brainstorming existing policies and evaluating their performance levels vis-à-vis future projections, the Manifesto should present detailed policies and programmes with specific timeframes for implementation. These should be supported by credible information and data, and tested to verify accuracy and consistency, since future policies would be scrutinized by opposing parties and the electorate as a whole.

• Fifthly, apart from a well-presented Manifesto, it is the accessibility of it that is critical. If it is restricted to the party faithful, as well as traditional supporters, this situation could have adverse effects on general voters’ decision on Election Day, a symptom that could be mistaken for `voter apathy.’ In all of this, political education is important – voters’ knowledge or lack of knowledge on key issues – should not be seen as a political license to treat citizens with contempt since this can have fatal consequences as experience suggests worldwide.

While it is true that on their own, elections are not always proof of the observance of liberal values cum meaningful democratic change, it is vital that those who are aspiring to govern respect the aspirations, expectations and wishes of citizens. In any event, Manifestos are the basis for initially setting out policy frameworks and testing their outcome via the ballet box. Their ultimate success depends on the response by the electorate in view. To their credit, politicians remain the essential link between the system of government (the rulers) and the public (the ruled), and for what it is worth, they should endeavour to maintain a deep sense of propriety in the theatre of politics to solidify the entire system of democratic governance, as it should be.

Industrialisation: The Greatest Gift For Guyana

by Dr. Christopher A. Johnson

Three weeks ago today, I watched a rare television interview with an American theologian whose book on God’s Politics bore revealing insights into the world of faith and governance and also poignancy. To quote an abstract, “We remember that faith hates violence and tries to reduce it and exerts a fundamental presumption against war, instead of justifying it in God’s name. We see that faith creates community from racial, class and gender divisions and prefers international community over nationalist religion…” This subject is a concern to some progressive Westerners, but for the Caribbean, it is closer to the heart of our leaders and yet in our midst, to the average citizen, there is a sense of moral and spiritual decay.

As Guyana celebrates with Trinidad and Tobago (1962) and Jamaica (1962), 40 years as an independent nation, her political leaders should activate a dedicated plan of soul-searching to answer these pertinent questions. Has the country developed since the British Union Jack was lowered for the last time in 1966? Has the economy grown since the `commanding heights’ were nationalised starting in 1976? Has a policy reversal in nationalisation changed anything? Is there greater unity in the country now, prior to 1966 when Guyana was divided by racial cleavage? What are the real prospects for the country in this century?

Guyanese from all walks of life were obviously proud of Political Independence, a new anthem, a new flag and a set of patriotic songs. There was general euphoria that the South American nation that is geopolitically part of the Caribbean Region had won a kind of Pyrrhic victory. After 150 years of intense struggle involving different European powers, Britain, as the last of the `colonial apostles,’ had agreed to cede self-rule, even though Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica had a four-year head start in this democratic tradition.

However, the newly independent Guyana inherited a servile political structure and a fragile economy that was subordinate to Western capitals. In short, Political Independence was not a palliative cure for economic freedom such was and still is, the much-avowed democratic fallacy of nation states buying into a shared expectation only to be marginalised by inequitable trade bargaining and financial muscularity.

Economic Renaissance

Much hope was pinned on the abundant reserves of bauxite, sugar, rice, timber and mineral products as the economic mainstay, not forgetting agriculture. As she was then, Guyana should have been, in sustainable terms, `the Bread Basket of the Caribbean’ and the “envy of the world” in economic terms. This proud national boast was shattered by a gradual decline in political and economic fortunes. The economic renaissance was arrested by ideological rigidity and economic inflexibility, as Guyana struggled to maintain its political autonomy whilst moving to an almost paralytic state of economic dependency. For all its plentiful resources, the `werewolf’ of ideological mimicry threatened to engulf the country’s youthful political culture. With a lack of technical expertise and inadequate financial power to bargain with, the country summoned its intellectual, cultural and social assets to great advantage as a counter to the machinations of global power politics, founded on a merciless obsession with racism and trade disparities.

As the scars of racism opened, Guyana’s evolving democracy was in effect, still born, but this situation gave rise to new vistas – slogans such as `Feed, Clothe and House the Nation’ and the active promotion of self-help initiatives through individual creativity and imaginativeness became entrenched. The Prophet, Khalil Gibran (1934) was quoted extensively, `Pity the nation that wears a cloth it does not weave, eats a bread it does not harvest, and drinks a wine that flows not from its own winepress,’ to infuse national pride and relevance to the powerless and the dispossessed.

In such trying times, a nation’s resolve is tested to the limit and citizens took on the challenges in one of two ways; by migrating in droves to `greener pastures;’ meaning North America and Europe, including the UK and or stay and `tough it out.’ Since the 1960s, `Uncle Sam’ and the `Mother Country’ have absorbed nearly half of the entire Guyanese population. Those who remained (were and still) are considered true patriots, having joined their leaders as inventors and innovators of change, with the fervent hope of rebuilding the country from the near ashes of the past.

The Era of Epochs

Nearly 20 years after Independence, seemingly lost fortunes for the country was regained, as a new leader emerged with a profound and unique vision. It was truly the end of an era and the beginning of a new epoch. Or was it? As if in a hurry, the new administration rekindled the spirit of the past, the glory of the present and a pointer to an expectant future. Only the best of the best was appropriate for the country, nothing else really mattered, even though this was not necessarily the case.

In the early 1990s, Guyana once again experienced a change in its political fortunes, as adaptation, compromise; accommodation and consensus were appropriated in the national political vocabulary. Proven to be the new dispensation, the country brimmed with renewed confidence as the politics of national unity gave way to ideological distortion and empty sloganeering. Guyana began to show `her true colours’ as its hard-won independence was being atoned. In effect, a delicate balance was found to ensure a more bipartisan approach to national politics. In the face of three successive administrations with mandates to turn the country around, what is the major stumbling block that prevails in the country at the moment? I have alluded to various possible solutions in this publication, but there are other critical areas that require urgent attention.

Very few commentators and analysts have used their expertise and weighty knowledge of Caribbean and international systems, to discuss at length, the implications of Guyana’s present Constitution, promulgated in 1980. Short of a complete overhaul, it has been a contentious issue for years as critics have often turned to personal vilification to put their points across. They have rounded on the Presidency, often blaming it for having a less pragmatic institutional approach to consensus politics in Guyana. In all this, the Rule of Law becomes a casualty, though constitutionally, the President is Head of State and the Prime Minister, Head of Cabinet.

Yet in Guyana’s present constitutional arrangement, both President and Prime Minister’s positions are coterminous and at times, they practically obscure and obfuscate the distinction between the Executive and Administrative Branches of Government. I stated in a previous article that Guyana inherited a twin political system biased in favour of the American and British model and while attempts have been made to correct inherent flaws, a more urgent and vigorous attention to detailing the changes necessary to heal this fissure of governance is desirable.

Constitutional Bipartisanship

As a nation approaching middle age, Guyana, its leaders and its people should challenge the problems of the country through constitutional means which is really a perfect legitimate way of handling the affairs of statehood. The suggestion for a cross-Party Constitutional Reform Committee to look at the anomalies of the current situation is not an overly ambitious or overzealous act. A possible referendum might be useful to give the nation a chance to debate issues of national importance and serve as a reminder that the country is truly democratic in principle and practice. A constitution that is riddled with structural flaws and historic irrelevancies is a recipe for chaos and confusion, and at worst, the undermining of sound democratic traditions, which Guyana must maintain as a modern nation-state.

The management of the economy is top priority and after 40 years of socialist and free-market experiments, the time is opportune to review the cost and benefit of these expedient models. A suggested `Third Way’ or `Middle Way’ is probably viable, since it will test the country’s will to adopt an alternative form of development to guarantee lasting prosperity and stability. The late Nobel Prize Laureate, Professor Sir Arthur Lewis, who was also a Caribbean patriot, wrote an extensive exposition on the use of agriculture as a strategic tool of industrialisation for Caribbean states. He advocated the conversion of the farming sector to a gradual industrial complex as a means of improving exports and increasing employment opportunities for all, whilst generating foreign exchange to invest in national programmes. So then, what are the real chances of Guyana pursuing a path of industrial reform? Does it have the capacity and capability to muster the resources to move into this vital and strategic orbit?

The idea of progressive and gradualist agricultural-industrial system of reform to take advantage of its limitless natural resources and its vast experience and exposure of international markets is absolutely necessary for the Republic. The wastage of farm produce – vegetables, citrus and ground provisions to name a few – could be curtailed if mini-factories and plants are installed in rural areas where a higher yield per acreage exists. The country could join the current Fair Trade campaign in Britain and Europe with support from the Ministry of Agriculture, the Marketing Board and the Ministry of Trade and Tourism, along with international trade specialists and marketers.

Quality processed food produced in abundance and at the right price could be negotiated for in large supermarkets across Europe. For Westerners, this could their tangible social investment contribution to the so-called `Third World Debt’ problem, commercially speaking. Economic Attaches from Caribbean High Commissions abroad could facilitate transactions of one type or another to ensure that a fair balance in trade is struck. A further move can be the optimum use of the WTO via the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement, as well as Caricom, can all do the trick.

Agro-industrialisation Complex

While industrialisation itself might be years away, a process of reform should begin soon. Political leaders should seize the opportunity to have dialogue with overseas based Guyanese and their Caribbean counterparts in `exile’ to draw on a pool of managerial, scientific, technical and strategic expertise in every facet of commerce and industry to carry out a comprehensive review of potential areas of industrialisation. The reform should take into account the organisation and performance of existing industries, their activity profile, financial arrangements, challenges and prospects, partnership contracts, as well as a critical skills path analysis.

Preparatory work should also include carrying out a risk assessment and an audit of potential sites where plants and other installations could be accommodated. A cost benefit analysis should be done to measure the impact such reform will have on the economy, especially on the cultural and social psyche of citizens. It is crucial that the audit includes the sourcing of expert views from regional and multilateral agencies and institutions to test their credibility, readiness and intent to support reforms in developing countries like Guyana. Indeed, the benefits of an agro-industrialisation reform programme far outweigh the disadvantages usually associated with ventures of this type. Among the benefits are to:

• Optimise Guyana’s vast resources by utilising the latent skills of every citizen at home and abroad, along with other concerned Caribbean nationals.
• Diversify the economy by creating segments of unique productive sectors.
• Encourage the use of new and renewable sources of technology in terms of energy and allied materials.
• Infuse confidence and pride in nation-building pursuits, thereby galvanising collective self-reliance and trusted leadership in Guyana’s political administration.
• Attract internal and external investment by creating avenues for wealth creation and value-added resources.
• Establish centres of scientific and technological excellences through the profusion of new skills and knowledge bases in each of the ten Administrative Regions.
• Enhance education and training systems whilst contributing to a larger pool of technical, intellectual and managerial expertise.
• Strengthen Guyana’s bargaining position in the marketplace of finance, trade and ideas at regional and international levels; and
• Magnify Guyana’s quest for democratic legitimacy to be used as an ideal instrument of change towards imbalances between the North and the South.

Every thing has a price tag, but a country’s prosperity is not a great price to pay if policies are informed by detailed analyses, meticulous planning, proper consultation and consensual views of the populace, added to resources from institutions that can help mobilise the necessary capital to initiate the process. Industrialisation is probably the greatest gift that our leaders can offer to Guyana; it remains a formidable challenge and a real prospect for the 21st century. The time for it to happen is now!

Mobilising the resources of overseas-based Guyanese to modernise the economy

by Dr. Christopher A. Johnson

In the Stabroek News edition of 20th January 2006, the Country Director of Grace Kennedy Remittance Services (Guyana) Ltd, Anna Lisa Fraser-Phang suggested the hastening of legislation to regulate the local money transfer industry. “The remittance industry in Guyana is simply too large and too important to the economy to be left to operate without effective regulation,” she explained. Her comments are pertinent to the current debate on the developing world’s use of migrant remittances as a source of development finance.

Yet, whether remittances are used for consumption or buying houses, or for other investments, in the case of Guyana, they stimulate demand for goods and services in the economy, and enable the country for pay for imports, repay foreign debt and improve creditworthiness. According to the World Bank, annual inflows of money transfers to Guyana were estimated at 17% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or $143 million (World Bank 20004). Remittances exceed the total overseas aid and foreign direct investment in Latin America and Caribbean alone, with 75% of the total value of remittances originating from the US, Europe and London.

In the context of the remittances trade, therefore, it is vital to understand the importance of encouraging overseas-based Guyanese to invest their knowledge, skills, finances and other resources, in an effort to create economic prosperity and improve the general well-being of Guyana. The present Administration can learn from the object lessons of other developing countries where a variety of intelligent and creative approaches have been adopted. In this article, I will show how a set of practical measures including imaginativeness, can help Guyana to maximise effectively, the value of her most precious assets – human resources – abroad.

Estimates suggest that more than 500,000 Guyanese reside all over the globe – North America, Britain and Europe, with a small number residing in parts of the Caribbean. The first generation of Guyanese emigrated in the 1950s – prior to Political Independence (in 1966); and thereafter, there was an increase in the out-migration of nationals in the 1970s-1980s as the economic situation deteriorated. The early 1990s witnessed, a gradual trickling return of Guyanese, with some as `occupational’ retirees and others as `professional’ investors, although both categories were significant wealth creators. Interestingly those who left the country in the early years have been visiting and spending some of their holidays in an effort to rekindle their roots, with the hope of a permanent return one day.

Successive governments have made efforts to attract nationals from abroad with incentives ranging from tax concessions, quality housing location and promises of concessions for business investment and social entrepreneurship. Efforts to attract overseas-based Guyanese have had mixed results and valid questions have been asked on both sides of the divide. Questions such as, What can the Sate offer to expatriate citizens? Have nationals lost their patriotic spirit and replaced it with fervent commitment to their new homeland(s)? What steps should be taken to ensure that the diasporic community enjoy the benefits and privileges of their brothers and sisters at home?

Challenges and Opportunities

An international study was commissioned some years ago, to examine attitudes to migration, and the findings revealed that Guyana’s challenges were similar to other emerging democratic states especially in Asia and Africa. One example, is that the receiving country tends to benefit more in terms of `new skill entries,’ while the exporting country’s economy suffers from a loss of key labour which has a corresponding effect on various sectors of the economy. A recent study by the World Migration Group revealed that the cost and benefit of migratory trends varied according to the size of economies. Giant economies in Far East benefit hugely, but the costs for smaller, economically weaker sending countries like those in the Caribbean, including Guyana, are not sufficiently known and “factored into migration policies.”

Overseas-based Guyanese maintain contact with families, relatives and friends through `hometown’ associations (HTAs) and the remittances trade. HTAs are charities or social firms set up to promote exchanges in goods and services between migrants and nationals – there are hundreds of civic groups in America, Canada and Britain particularly. While individuals use informal and formal money transfers to send monies to family and friends, diasporic charities raise funds for just causes and `wire’ a portion of funds back home. Guyana Watch, founded in 1992 and based in Queens, New York, provides an annual medial outreach service in Guyana, whereby a group of 20-25 doctors and nurses travel to the three Counties in Guyana (Essequibo, Demerara and Berbice) and work at a clinic for one day, attending to between 2,500 and 3,000 people.

Guyanese HTAs are motivated by a practical desire to improve economic and social conditions in their hometowns, and their leaders and fund-providers argue that this strategy is also intended to reduce migration. Ironically, since these projects alone do not substantially boost development, they also do not prevent out-migration from continuing at least as a matter of choice, if no longer as a necessity. The effect of remittances as development aid is often limited however. Migrants who settle abroad and have their family join them, are likely to contribute less to development through remittances. Guyana’s history of receiving remittances has not really impacted on `initial investment as a spur to longer term economic growth, but rather than a way of life’. Poorer nationals benefit more from monies couriered to them than the immediate physical environment. The unregulated flow of funds coming into Guyana is therefore both a problem and opportunity.

Remittance flows to Africa which amount to several billion dollars per annum, contribute to poverty reduction as the authorities earmark resources for micro projects in villages, towns and suburbs. Projects include purchase of educational materials, water and sanitation requirements, support for small non-governmental organisation and `set-aside’ resources for street children and other impoverished citizens.

The money transfer industry, according to Fraser-Phang requires strict national laws, but why does it need regulating? The industry itself operates in a rather laiseez- faire manner and the level of competition is measured by the number of transfers conducted by financial institutions (such as banks and `informal’ organs such as Western Union agents) versus the number of recipients who benefit directly from the funds. In come countries, transfer agents need to require full banking licence, even when they have no intention of providing banking services. Entry barriers also include lack of access to existing payment systems, which forces new entrants into the remittance market to build their own costly proprietary transfer systems.

Some larger remittance service providers have persuaded the postal network or large banks with extensive branch networks in developing countries, to sign exclusive contracts that limit the access of competitors to these distribution networks. To address this problem, however, it will require policy co-ordination – especially harmonizing regulatory and compliance requirements between both the source and destination countries. This could prove very expensive.

A set of halfway house measures might be a useful consideration by let’s say the Ministry of Finance, although any legislation to be passed, must be done after, in the words of Fraser-Phang, “genuine consultations with the operators in the industry” rather than any imposition. The different costs structures associated with the remittance trade are important considerations; they include transfer agent’s fee, currency conversion fee and other charges associated with both the receiving agent and the recipient-customer. It is argued that with existing cost structures there may be scope for reducing average remittance costs.

For the sake of argument, if a person sends £100 per month for a period of six months, the total remittances cost for that period is estimated at 10% or £90. If on the other hand the person could send the entire £600 in one transaction, the remittance could fall to just £60 or less depending on what deal could be made with regular known providers. The difficulty is that many poor remittance senders typically do not have sufficient funds to bundle remittances. Banks and other finance institutions could play a role in alleviating such liquidity constraints and reducing the effective cost of remittances.

Impact of Remittances

In an effort to stimulate the domestic economy through the `personal inflows’ trade, the Guyana Government could introduce flexible policy measures to act as a counter-weight in the fight against money laundering and facilitation of remittance flows. Informal channels are cheaper, and informal agents work longer hours, operate in remote areas where there are no formal channels, and have often have staff to speak the language of migrant customers. Informal channels however, can be subject to abuse.

Strengthening the formal remittance infrastructure by offering the advantages of low cost, flexible hours, expanded reach and language, can induce a shift in flows from informal to the formal sector. Both sender and recipient countries should support migrants’ access to banking by providing them with identification tools.

On the positive side, remittances are believed to reduce poverty, as it is often the poor who migrate and send back remittances, even though in Guyana’s case, nationals from different economic and social backgrounds tend to migrate. Yet, remittances have practical developmental potentialities. By improving the quality and flow of remittances, the following could be achieved:

• lowering transfer costs, for example, lower fees and more favourable exchange rates, reducing the risks involved in these transfers, and offering more attractive investment alternatives
• create appropriate savings services for migrants and their families internationally, for example `repatriate’ foreign currency accounts; foreign currency denominated (remittances) bonds; savings certificates denominated in foreign currency
• micro-finance institutions could expand their micro and small business portfolio; and
• Government and developing agencies could provide services such as training, business advice and marketing assistance for micro and small entrepreneurs to enable matching of funds for development projects.

Remittances may also help improve economic growth in Guyana, especially if they are used for financing children’s education or health expenses. Even when they are used for consumption, they can have multiplier effects in the case for high unemployment in local villages and districts in Guyana. Encouraging account-to-account remittance flows instead of cash transfers could result in increased savings by recipients (and senders) and better matching (by banks) of available savings. Improving financial opportunities in the recipient country would also encourage more investment. The Government and the private sector could also ensure that other parallel measures are in place to support investment in development-related activities such as community development projects, mortgage support, health insurance for dependents and similar allocations.

National policy makers in Guyana should keep an open mind since remittances are not public money and any harsh degree of regulation can cause senders and recipients to carry revert to `underground’ methods to carry out transactions. Remittances are personal flows, often better left to the remitters and recipients to decide how they should be spent. Efforts to tax remittances or direct them to specific investments may well prove difficult. Experience has shown in other parts of the world, that remittances are more effective in generating incomes and investment, when “they are supported by good public policy sand financial infrastructure.”

Good Practice

Another measure in which remittances can impact on Guyana’s poor in particular, is the introduction of what is described as the `Community Funds Programme’. This involves Government or the private sector match funding projects that aim to harness the productive potential of communities. In Guatemala for example, where many villages suffer from the economic crisis and high jobless rates, aggravated by falling coffee prices on the international markets, the Community Funds concept is operational.

The concept draws on the income-generating capacity of the diaspora to establish grassroots joint ventures and investment project in the home communities to fund social, infrastructure and generally, development-oriented projects. It builds on the banking capacity of migrants as a value-added incentive to help them manage their financial resources and to channel these towards seed capital-generating small investment projects.

Guyana can pilot these initiatives in poor areas on the East and West Bank of Demerara, East Bank Berbice and the Lower Corentyne areas especially. The programme can facilitate linkages with local and national markets through business centres, and attract financial and technical support from villages and emigrants for local productive and social projects. The benefits of this programme can be thus, to: –

• Overcome the division that traditionally has isolated small producers, by aggregating their harvests and through greater volumes strengthen their price-setting power;
• Bring together local merchants to bid jointly for larger purchases and obtain better prices through strengthened bargaining power;
• Develop business training programmes; and
• Develop credit programmes with a sound basis and realistic outlook and objectives to obtain credible access to modern commercial and marketing networks.

The Community Funds Programme could be an important experiment in social engineering in which the Government and partners can provide a model for other communities experiencing high emigration rates – both internal and external of Guyana.

While there is a compelling case for regulatory reform, in general, the combined use of remittances and expertise of overseas-based Guyanese represents powerful instruments of economic and social policy dynamics. This measure has the potential of possibly, alleviating or reducing the critical gap between rich and poor, especially in suburban areas and other far-flung parts of the country. It is worth pursuing now!

Consensus Politics is vital to Guyana’s stability

by Dr. Christopher A. Johnson

With General Elections imminent this year in Guyana, debate on the country’s future is at fever pitch and Guyanese from all walks of life now have this golden opportunity to `grasp the nettle.’ The survival of any nation state depends largely, much like `The Land of Many Waters,’ on their ability and capacity to resolve internal differences while negotiating external pressures of one type or another. These opposites demand tactfulness, not posturing and unnecessary ridicule. For all intents and purposes, Guyana’s case may be problematic, but soluble.

To compete in global power politics, all Guyanese should recognise the negative impact partisan politics has on the country, internationally. The overzealous efforts by some to propagate divisions in the national political and social culture are damaging. Disagreements are often described as the ‘stuff’ of politics and its ‘league’ players. Constructive opposition keeps a government on its toes, especially if such criticism is in the national interest, for without the passion of debate, politics will remain, in common parlance, a ‘spoilt sport,’ boring and less tolerable, to governors and governed alike.

Perspectives should therefore be factual and original, and as critics lambaste the shortcomings of the State, they must be mindful of unwittingly squandering the Political Independence and Republican gains over the past three decades. The preoccupation with ideological contests and ethnic insecurity too, has created further blind spots in the country’s ability to have intelligent debates on practical solutions to real problems.

Guyana needs a huge investment of change management capital to alleviate various inequities created by the rulebook on British and U.S. Republican-styles of government. For nearly half a century this approach has stultified the liberal aspirations of the country and since the mid-1980s, unsuccessful attempts have been made to deal with this protracted dilemma.

Further, appropriate solutions have been implicated by ‘blame politics’ and ‘ideological deviance,’ allied to Western persuasions of ‘divide and rule,’ and ‘divide and conquer.’ To the uniformed casual observer, these attitudes are invariably embedded in the Guyanese psyche and equally prevalent on matters pertaining to Caribbean integration.

Historic Dilemma

Past administrations have been routinely vilified for countless sins of ‘omission’ and ‘commission’ even in cases where there was national consensus on key national priorities: free education, ownership of essential industries, land reforms etc. It is certainly the case that Guyana’s current difficulties are a manifestation of internal and external circumstances some of which are yet to be analysed from informed and objective perspectives.

Yet, if Guyana’s political leadership were to be examined and tested in some measure, the main reference would be leaders management styles. The Forbes Burnham Administration (1964-1985) was attracted to the socialist ideology, employed by developing states as an expedient tool of governance to unshackle themselves from colonial-imperial vestiges, whilst steering a path of self-rule. In the main, Guyana’s situation was comparable to other emerging independent nations – Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada and African nations. Ostensibly, the Indian sub-continent and China had their fair share of ideological successes, ranging from social democracy to a mixed economy (in the case of China, one country three systems and in the case of India, one country two systems or at least so it appeared to outsiders).

As the politics of opportunism took root, the Burnham Administration was tarred with the brush of authoritarianism though this period of enlightenment failed to consider the Republic’s historic assimilation of Western adversarial politics. When Guyana obtained political independence from Britain, it inherited a virtual ‘elective dictatorship’ resembling that of the (British) Westminster model, a fact that is today, still widely quoted in the British and European media particularly.

Proportional Representation or ‘PR’ has been the most controversial political system of Anglophone Governments since the mid-20th century, as evidence suggests, Guyana’s almost powerless adherence to its principles, has become an apparent stumbling block to genuine reform.

The recent debate on the Iraq war in Europe was a timely reminder of the ever-present need to uphold the ‘fairness doctrine’ in times of conflict. It was pleasing therefore, to observe the swathe of opinions on Proportional Representation and its implications for countries embracing it.

To quote a leading campaigner for modern and fair democracy, “There is only one weighty democratic argument deployed against Proportional Representation in principle. The job of elections is not only to reflect opinions but also to aggregate them so as to make effective decision-taking possible after polling day. A trade-off between fairness and aggregation is therefore essential, particularly if very small minorities are not to wield disproportionate influence because they happen to hold the balance of seats between the larger parties. In reality, this argument mainly applies to the use of PR without a reasonable threshold requirement for gaining seats.”

It is known that most countries using PR impose a threshold of at least five percent -either nationally or within a region – to gain seats. Few fringe parties get over this hurdle, but representation of the larger parties is nonetheless fair, which must be the case for Guyana.

Contrary to the rhetoric, a close study of economic indices at the time showed that the Burnham Administration had little choice. With Guyana’s small dwindling population, coupled with a narrow economic base, poor returns on exports, limited technology and lack of high-order skills, the choice was either a re-colonisation of Guyana or pursuance of national self-reliance. The success of political leaders is characterised by charisma, integrity and dedication, apart from expert advice and guidance offered by endowed professionals, including political careerists.

The issue of whether the advice given to the Burnham Administration (in very exceptional and extremely pressured circumstances) had to do with traditional Manifesto pledges or broader national interests is a subject that remains a subject for credible analysis. Instead, the late President Burnham’s personal excesses have been used to paint a gloomy picture of Guyanese politics to the rest of the world.

Managerial Politics

The Desmond Hoyte Administration (1985-1992) was a combination of ideological realignment and administrative deftness, and although he was criticised for the ‘partnership with the Burnham legacy,’ the late President infused credibility and faith in Guyana’s flagging political leadership. Elements of change management were apparent with the gradual overhaul of administrative processes and procedures within Central and Local Government authorities.

Under his leadership, Hoyte guaranteed Guyana’s position in the universal fraternity of democratic nations and laid the foundation for economic renewal. Opportunities in non-traditional areas were created, with the start of a flourishing free media, the proliferation of new and varied literature, innovation and growth in productive and service sectors, as well as the mushrooming of political parties and social movements. A deliberate strategy to woo experienced and highly skilled Guyanese abroad was implemented and it paid significant dividends.

The Dr. Cheddi Jagan Administration (1992-1997) period of rule was revealing, as Guyana was repositioned strategically in the marketplace of ideas and commodity bargaining. Dr. Jagan’s notion of ideology was interwoven with an atmosphere of weighty democracy, and in a move that defied critics; he initiated the politics of consensus and accommodation. It was his Administration that demonstrated the mastery of statecraft in Guyana, by blending traditional ideology with pragmatic politics (the Civic component is a classic example of consensus politics).

As a pragmatist, Dr. Jagan exemplified the value of ethnic unity reinforced by social cohesion and ideological finesse. Such emphases became invaluable coordinates as Guyana punched above her ‘weight’ at regional and international forums by articulating modern approaches in tackling inequalities affecting the world’s deprived and excluded. Contemporary politics is about compromise and party leaders concede that the centre ground of politics is more expedient than adopting rigid ‘Left’ or Right’ inclinations.

Political parties usually wear each other’s ideological garb and this slick piece of advertising has thrown most electorates into confusion and doubt. Issues on trust, believability and integrity are raised repeatedly, by experienced and first-time voters in their anxiety to understand genuine contenders in the political leadership terrain, prompting politicians to alter their ideological positions and contradict the electorate’s expectations, by default.

As a consequence, the current Administration has an enduring challenge to continue building and consolidating the good work left by its predecessors. President Bharrat Jagdeo has youth, experience, exuberance, affability and patriotic zeal, the kind of repertoire associated with modern political leadership evidenced in emerging democracies. His reconstruction program will demand a pooling of honed skills and expertise to resolve the country’s problems – some of these solutions have been alluded to in the columns of this publication.

Politics of Maturity

As campaigning in the General Elections intensifies, it will be interesting to observe if the `Politics of Maturity’ has infected the 40-year independent Guyana. For the sake of constructive politicking, all Parties should be ready to evaluate their positions in the following ways. Leaders must demonstrate their capacity to tolerate criticism rather than pettiness and vitriol. They must focus on discipline among rank and file, making full use of political/voter education to empower and provide a morale boost for disaffected constituents.

Secondly, each Party must have credible Manifestos outlining proposals and set up appropriate Working Groups to conduct detailed reviews on issues affecting the country. Priority should be given towards attracting overseas Guyanese since there is a pool of untapped talent in the Diaspora whose professional expertise is needed more than ever.

Project management and related technical skills are in short supply in Guyana and the continued dependency on non-Guyanese expatriates has deprived the country of its finest brains. This policy should be reversed forthwith if any serious attempt is to be made to heal Guyana’s political wounds and economic scars. This should be an essential marker for all on the campaign trail.

Thirdly, Parties must have a social agenda that derives strength and vitality from the political and social divide. The time is opportune to dismantle the pervasive ethnic and cultural partition that has weakened Guyana’s dynamic political culture and driven nationals abroad in droves, only to find themselves imperilled by bitter alienation and isolation in so-called `greener pastures,’ even while enjoying newly found trappings.

An equivocation of national interests rather than cheap Party politics or narrow self-interest, must be the overriding factor in this year’s Elections. Since political parties are the ones that form governments, however, it may be impractical to disassociate Party interests from national priorities.

Parties should define their ideological credentials (no one is advocating here, that leaders must ‘nail their flag to the mast’); they should demonstrate their strategy through practical ideas towards enabling Guyana’s prosperity. There should be clarity in Party Manifestos on Guyana’s relationship with the Caribbean and Latin American Region, as well as the wider international community. Politically, Guyana should not be isolated from global currents.

In addition to General Elections, there is an urgent need to hold Regional Elections to offer citizens the chance to elect the leaders of their choice. Apart from an exercise in electioneering, these regular polls will guarantee the reforms needed to strengthen the hands of representative and participatory democracy by citizens in neighbourhoods, districts, sub-regions and regions as a whole.

It is probably a good idea to legislate for an annual run-off of Regional Elections and National Primaries (Elections) held every two years to enable citizens to monitor the effectiveness of Parliamentarians and Councillors in various constituencies in Guyana. It is an idea worth pursuing in this day and age of change management politics (sic).

Although Guyana has a small population comparable to physical size and composition, it is blessed with an abundance of natural resources, the fertility of ideas and achievements. The use of ‘soft’ power to deal with regional and international disputes is a hallmark of Guyana’s conflict resolution management techniques, and this diplomatic instrument should be celebrated and used as a model for national governance. The country’s future hinges on the commitment, dedication and will of all Guyanese and Caribbean citizens to ensure a path of harmony and sustainable development is pursued.

Indeed, contrary to popular opinion, it is unfair to compare the Republic with the US, Britain, Europe and other industrialised states, structurally. Factually, massive financial resources, corporatism, extensive bureaucracies and militarism that have made Western nations superior in global power politics, could be attributed to their incestuous practices of protectionism, imposition of ideological diktats and domination of world capital, to name a few.

These structural determinants must be examined carefully by commentators and analysts when viewing Guyana’s situation. It is rather inexcusable to apportion blame on political institutions when they are only part of the problem, and in the case of Guyana as a developing nation, her quest towards full economic liberalisation is coterminous with Western nations grappling with the term ‘Democracy’ and its inherent contradictions.

For all of its problems, economic and social, the 33 year old Republic is still a relatively peaceful place, devoid of protracted civil unrests, including ethnic cleansing, which make headlines in parts of Africa, the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East and Europe. Guyana has a healthy balance of moral and spiritual power and this should be used as a force for good.

The politics of consensus and accommodation will ultimately salvage the Guyanese nation and create lasting stability. Conventionally, governments are the elected representatives of the people and like most things, they come and go. Guyanese of all description and prescription, have the chance to get it right this time, if not, we would have failed our beloved country, especially our children and theirs too.

The REA as a modern instrument of National Reform

by Dr. Christopher A. Johnson

In an article dated 18th December 2005 in this publication, mention was made of the importance of another structural tier to complement the existing Regional Democratic Council (RDC). On that occasion, we alluded to the primary aim of the RDC – to allow for active participation by the citizenry in the democratic process. The creation of Regional Enterprise Agencies represents a modern instrument of economic development to boost further reforms in Guyana.

In its current form, the RDC has been criticised for its historic flaws: too politicised, unadaptive, inflexible and unable to articulate a consistent economic and social policy conducive to the demands of local communities. The REA system has a comparative advantage from a policy instrument perspective, since philosophically; it avoids the pitfalls of ideological correctness in an environment where expediency tends to be outweighed by the imperatives of market forces.

Within reason, REAs can be integrated in the constitutional provisions, including the 1996 reforms under the Local Government Act. Detailed parameters of this initiative can be set out, along with the necessary institutional arrangements that required ensuring that it works coherently. REAs can facilitate space for various organisations, agencies and groups to take part in enterprise activities and events and are designed to promote regional co-operation among diverse communities. The suggested format for the REA system is wide and varied, but it represents nevertheless, a logical step towards broadening the scope of regional democracy.

Legislative Process

It is proposed that, as a start, the authority responsible for Local Government or Regional Affairs, should devise a Concept Paper after extensive discussions with interested parties – business, education, training, social, cultural among others. A Bill outlining terms of reference for the RDA system and principled aims and objectives, should be framed for debate in Parliament. The legislation should cover too, a clear timetable and a feedback mechanism.

At the end of the consultation process, roadshow seminars should be organised to promote this initiative especially to rural parts of Guyana. Once approved, the Bill should have cross- Party support and feed into the views of experts to strengthen its legislative framework. The legislation should then be given a gestation period of 8-10 months before actual implementation, during which time, there will be reflection and consideration of emerging views from the Regions, as well as an opportunity for clarification.

The implementation of the REA Bill should allow for further pre-testing of delivery and this means that piloting the initiative in at least six Regions – 2, 3,4,5,6 and 10 respectively – where more than 70 percent of Guyana’s productive sectors are located. This is approach is crucial for success of the REA system. Naturally, these pilots will test the efficiency and effectiveness of the new structure and its impact on communities in selected Regions. An evaluation of each pilot should be carried out; measuring outcomes and outputs, since each Region may have unique features along political, economic, social and cultural lines. Different methods of intervention would be required to determine the results or outcomes of this initiative.

The REA Implementation

The implementation of the REA system is sine qui non to regional liberalisation. It tests the Establishment’s `fairness doctrine’ as it applies to local government politics. It offers fresh impetus for the creation of regional excellence models and stimulates a series of innovations underpinned by education, training and social (investment) provision. It frees spare capacity for infrastructure, labour and other resources within each of the 10 Administrative Regions. In effect, it offers maximum advantage for growth and development all round, not forgetting value for money. The REA will enable skills retention, increased growth of new local economies, improved managerial competence, accountability and enhanced fiscal discipline.

From a practical standpoint, the REA system is premised on a fundamental shift of economic policy aimed at citizens in far-flung areas who will be the main beneficiaries in accessing manifold opportunities through the creation of enterprise and entrepreneurship activities in the Regions. The challenge in all of this, will be the medium-term impact, apart from its lasting benefits. The current RDC system is limited in scope for a real economic breakthrough for regional viability. So then, what are the implications and how will it translate into meaningful benefits for both the `haves’ and have-nots’? The following implications of the REA are possible:

1. Its structural framework will have to adapt to the variations and variables in each of the 10 Administrative Regions.
2. Though qualitative and quantitative in character, aims and objectives should demonstrate the intention of improving production and productivity yields. Realism should prevail rather than flawed assumptions of one type or another.
3. REAs activity profile should be specific and tailored to meet the demands of the regional populace. Accurate information and reliable data are necessary to ensure that programmes are not overly ambitious or based on the whim of partisan interests.
4. The management structure should reflect an array of legal composites; namely, limited companies with charitable objectives, social enterprises or quasi-corporate entities less share holding and profit motive considerations or tendencies. Boards with multidisciplinary foci should be instituted and balanced by executives. These personnel should have considerable experience in economic affairs, regeneration, business management, project development, financial and accounting, as well as relevant cultural and social skills. There should be scope for a sub-regional element to take care of larger regions such as those found in the Berbice and Essequibo counties. Sub-regional Chairs should be appointed to sit on Regional Boards to ensure sound decision making and realistic programme delivery.
5. Apart from the ideological flexibility, possibly the greatest challenge, will be the political will of Central Government; that is, testing the Executive’s long-term commitment to additional reform to reinvigorate the national economy through the creative use, and application of modern approaches to local governance to bring about greater prosperity and stability in deprived and excluded communities in Guyana.
6. The REA system will contribute to economic buoyancy through additional jobs, new skills, innovation, technology developments, improved physical infrastructure, confidence and a morale boost for citizens.
7. Partnership working would be further enhanced, with better co-ordination and the harmonisation of various segments of the Guyanese economy. Increased procurement and tender opportunities will benefit micro firms and social enterprises. The challenge for large companies will be how to `play ball’ within the regional context.
8. Equality and equity standards (for everyone irrespective of race, class or creed) would also be tested to the hilt.

Ultimately, the REA system will demonstrate the validity of its actual creation. Would it be seen as another legislative hurdle to implement? Would it be regarded as another tool of economic expediency? Would it be considered an invaluable instrument for unleashing the potential of citizens in poor districts and neighbourhood-villages in Guyana? The answer to these questions would be judged by the desperate need to spur economic growth by implementing practical and responsible reform measures, whilst balancing the risk of current economic necessity with quaint ideological models.

Yet, this is an opportune moment for Guyana to harness the necessary resources to generate sustainable development. That is why it is important to have a constructive debate on a Regional Enterprise Agency system to strengthen economic governance in 21st century Guyana.