The recent passage of the Gambling Prevention (Amendment) Bill, in spite of the serious reservations of religious leaders and the opposition political parties, has brought an entire series of questions about Guyana’s future to the fore. It is evident that the PPP government’s haste to ensure passage of the legislation – despite the doubts of the religious communities and pleas for serious parliamentary discussion of the issue by the opposition – would seem to have been driven by more than simply the desire to compensate for the $37 million dollar cut in European sugar price cuts, one argument for the legislation advanced by Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee. What was particularly striking about the Government’s advocacy of the legislation was that there was little precision in the anticipated costs and benefits of the proposed scheme(s). In effect, the government seemed to be gambling on gambling to secure the future of the country.
It is, perhaps, a measure of Guyana’s predicament that a government led by a trained economist seems unable to engage in a serious discussion of the “developmental” impact of gambling. However, it is evident that the turn to casino capitalism reflects the PPP’s lack of vision about the country’s economic growth and transformation. Since its return to office in 1992, the PPP has pursued a strategy of seeking debt forgiveness from foreign creditors as a key to creating the conditions for future economic growth. However, in hindsight, it seems that debt reduction has become an end in itself, without serious thought being focused upon the ways in which it can be used to create the conditions that would stimulate economic expansion and diversification. In effect, the Guyanese economy continues to be stalled by a lack of strategic planning on the part of the government fifteen years after its return to office.
While there may be those critics who perceive the problem as one of the residues of the ruling party’s legacy as a Marxist-Leninist organization, the real problem may be rooted in the fact that the PPP has been unable to grasp that it is no longer an opposition party. The role and responsibility of government in a functioning democracy should, ideally, be directed at creating consensus around policies that meet the interests and concerns of the majority of the society. In effect, the government should be able to provide both leadership and responsible governance that safeguards the interests of the country’s constituencies and stakeholders. The role of the opposition should be to illuminate the shortcomings and weaknesses of government policies and practices that work against the interests of the entire society. In effect, good governance requires both the government and the opposition to play the roles of competitors to secure the well-being of the wider society. The PPP has demonstrated an unfortunate tendency to govern by executive fiat supported by a parliamentary majority rather than through a search for consensus with other stakeholders in the society. This strategy will only breed alienation.
The government’s approach to the passage of the recent gambling legislation has, unfortunately, confirmed the perception of a willingness to disregard the serious concerns of both the opposition parties and representatives of the wider civil society – particularly religious leaders. This disregard was accompanied by disparaging remarks directed at the religious leaders but, to his credit, President Bharrat Jagdeo displayed the grace to disavow the campaign of disparagement by his colleagues.
The embrace of casino capitalism coincided with the government’s decision to remove ministry advertising from the Stabroek News. It was an unfortunate blunder as it sent a message, again, of disregard for a key aspect of democratic governance – freedom of the press. In the context of Guyanese history, these actions have generated resonances of the turn to repression in Guyana’s history evoked by Martin Carter’s “This is the Dark Time My Love.”
