Some weeks ago, we were treated to a fairly lively but short-lived dispute – what the British might call an argy-bargy – in our letters column over the question of the late President Cheddi Jagan’s legacy. Much of what was written did not go beyond the emotional, as the varying interpretations of Dr Jagan’s legacy remained in the realm of the purely subjective. Indeed, a complete history of Cheddi Jagan’s role in the making of Guyana and of his tragically foreshortened tenure as President is still to be written. Perhaps more time needs to pass before a suitably objective assessment of his contribution to the building of our nation state might be compiled.
In the meantime, a thumbnail sketch of some of the principles espoused by President Jagan might help us to determine whether we have been heading in the direction that he would have desired. We turn for enlightenment to a speech entitled ‘The Caribbean Community: Cross-roads to the Future,’ delivered on February 28, 1994, almost at the half-way point of his presidency, at the Institute of International Affairs (IIR), at the University of the West Indies in Trinidad and Tobago.
Much of that address focused on charting a way forward for Caricom at a time of dynamic political change in the international environment and economic uncertainty in the region – pretty much as it is today. For Dr Jagan, this was a critical period for developing countries in the new multipolar, globalizing world, as they faced unmanageable levels of national indebtedness, increasing poverty and inequality, and further marginalization. He therefore felt compelled to outline his vision of the role of the state in promoting a “wider horizon for development and a deeper international peace.”
Dr Jagan believed that development could not be “narrowly construed to mean simply economic growth,” that is, economic growth could not be divorced from human development. This was an indisputable constant throughout his life. He would surely have approved of Ian McDonald’s argument in last Sunday’s column that it is “nonsense” to “take for granted that Gross Domestic Product is an accurate measure of success and well-being in a nation.”
Development with a human face was arguably one of the overriding objectives of Dr Jagan’s presidency.
Thus he asserted in the IIR speech that his government had established in Guyana a “national-democratic state” which was “neither a capitalist state under the control of Big Business nor a socialist state under the control of the working class.” His avowed intention was to protect the interests of the people, especially the poor and the marginalized. And perhaps with his idealism getting the better of him, Dr Jagan boasted that “the PPP/Civic alliance, by its class, social and cultural composition, embracing all progressive classes and strata of society and balancing race/ethnicity and ideology, is eminently qualified to bring about human development.”
“We intend to set an example of good governance,” he continued, meaning “representative and participatory democracy with a people-centred Development Programme and a ‘basic human needs’ strategy for the poorest.”
Moreover, Dr Jagan saw the public sector and private sector working in close partnership, with the former “playing a complementary and facilitating role” and the latter being the much vaunted “engine of growth,” in pursuit of the goals of economic growth, human development and social justice. And to achieve these, a “democratic, lean and clean government and efficient management” would be “essential pre-requisites.”
Fourteen years since that speech and eleven years since Dr Jagan’s untimely death, it is debateable how much has been achieved to fulfil his vision. Let us be clear. We do not believe that for one moment Dr Jagan was being insincere. Indeed, we fully believe that his intentions were honourable and that he considered his vision to be attainable.
Successive PPP/C administrations have however squandered the goodwill that accompanied Dr Jagan’s election in 1992. “Lean and clean government” is now an embarrassing, best forgotten catch phrase.
“Efficient management” in the public sector is fast becoming an alien notion. The private sector as the “engine of growth” is another meaningless phrase bandied about by people who seemingly understand little about the need to give the private sector the space and the framework to grow and to add value to the productive sector. And the bi-partisan National Development Strategy gathers dust.
True, President Bharrat Jagdeo has been successful in securing significant debt relief. The economic data also reflect improved GDP growth over the past two years, following low or negative growth in the previous eight years. But this cannot, should not, be enough for Dr Jagan’s political heirs, especially as the current rise in food and oil prices and our woeful social services, social indicators and violent crime rates underline the fragility of the state. Let’s face it: there is no sustainability in remittances and income of dubious provenance. Nor is foreign direct investment, the real test of confidence in the economy and the legal framework provided by the state, pouring in.
Many will of course argue that we are still to come to terms with and recover from the legacy of Dr Jagan’s early infatuation with communism, as much as Forbes Burnham’s failed experiment of cooperative socialism. But in spite of the baggage with which he assumed office in 1992, President Jagan also seemed to understand the basic principle that transparency and integrity in government are the bedrock of good governance and administrative competence. The government and the nation as a whole would do well to revisit some of his principles, such as those he adumbrated in his 1994 speech, in pursuit of equitable socio-economic growth and human development. That Dr Jagan’s vision remains largely unfulfilled is part of the national tragedy we are living.
