Dear Editor,

Ever since I wrote a letter urging President Bharrat Jagdeo to redeem his sagging legacy by restoring public confidence in government – executive, legislative and judicial – PPP and government apologists have been wallowing in an orgy of consensus about statistics as they try to hijack the ensuing discussion/debate by shifting the focus to the President’s handling of Guyana’s foreign debt crisis. Just in case these nocturnal apologists suddenly crawling out of the woodwork don’t know, the origin of the discussion was about the President’s sagging legacy and not about debt relief. Debt relief was what Dr Prem Misir cited in his reaction as the centrepiece of the President’s legacy, and from there the debate took off.

I am not going to be derailed from my original focus on the President’s sagging legacy, but if his political spinners believe his legacy is going to be determined by his handling of Guyana’s debt, then that’s really narrowing what should have been a broader spectrum of factors that should also be considered when determining what constitutes a legacy. And as has been pointed out, he was not the only player in the debt relief fight. Besides, he has more than two years still to go in his presidency, so he can either resign himself to being the President who tried and failed, or who proved rather trying in his failure, or the President who managed to redeem himself. I believe in second chances, but only if people would grasp the opportunity.

A presidential legacy can be good or bad, but it should never be determined by a President or his appointed political lackeys, for that’s almost like self-praise, which Guyanese know is no recommendation. Defining a President’s legacy should be the work of objective political analysts, historians and commentators, and most importantly, the consensus of the nation. On the last point, there has to be something about the President’s performance in office most Guyanese can agree on as outstanding, and that will be long remembered in order for it to satisfy the concept of a legacy. For example, what do most ordinary Guyanese think of the legacy of Forbes Burnham, Desmond Hoyte, Cheddi Jagan and Janet Jagan? What their respective supporters say about them should never define their true legacy!

While no amount of spin by the President’s political lackeys will determine for the Guyanese people what the President’s legacy would look like, we still have to be prepared to deal with the spinners as they have an axe to grind. Just Friday, one unnamed letter writer to the Guyana Chronicle added his or her two cents of spin on the debt relief topic by taking me to task on four points: 1) that I said I have no debt relief figures to counter those put out by Dr Prem Misir – this was not a spin but a blatant inaccuracy, as I never said that; 2) that Guyana’s foreign debt to GDP ratio before 1992 was different from today’s, which I never questioned; 3) lending institutions separately rate borrowers’ ability to repay, which still does not explain why Jagdeo is borrowing fresh loans while getting debt forgiveness even though Guyana has resources that can deal with debt and development simultaneously; and 4) some strange reference attributed to me about “the purchasing power of (the) Guyana dollar” – I have no idea where that fitted into my discussion on the topic at hand.

Letter writers don’t have to agree on issues before they can identify themselves, so if a writer is going to respond to a letter with disagreements, it is only fair that he or she should ‘man-up’ (or ‘woman-up’) and identify himself (or herself) if the person being responded to stated his or her name.

Then there was a letter writer whose name is synonymous mainly with the Guyana Chronicle, Ms Elizabeth Daly. She jumped head first into this debate accusing me of comparing Guyana’s FDIs to America’s FDIs, citing as her frame of reference my letter ‘The spin doctor and his web of deceit,’ (KN, May 23). I have a copy of that letter on file and there is no such comparison. Maybe reading and comprehension are not the forte of PPP apologists or they are so determined to spin, they fail to comprehend what they read. But the canny resemblance was too much to miss in understanding the government’s spin factory modus operandi when Ms Daly laid out Guyana’s FDIs from 1994 to 2007 in the exact manner Dr Misir did in one of his letters in the debate! Give the propaganda factory credit for sticking together on their talking points.

But here is the big picture story: Though the President’s principal cheerleader (Dr Misir) originally touted the President’s handling of debt relief as the centrepiece of his legacy, that relief actually seems to have done little to impact the realities of the 21st-century economic security needs of ordinary Guyanese, as evidenced by Guyanese who are continually outward bound as opposed to inward bound, and the continued reliance by Guyanese at home on remittances from overseas (over US$400M from the United States alone last year). That US$400M-plus alone almost tripled the FDIs (US$152M) for 2007 and most of it likely went towards paying for consumer goods and services. Take away remittances, therefore, and carefully observe Guyanese reactions to the government’s brag about the benefits of debt relief.

I dare the President or his cheerleading comrades to go throughout Guyana and tell Guyanese (in impromptu, rather than staged meetings) the good news about debt relief and watch the reaction they will get. I dare them to do the same thing to Guyanese in Barbados, Trinidad, Antigua or St Lucia, and see how many Guyanese will be on the same plane heading back home with the President and his entourage or will start making plans to return. For ordinary Guyanese, it does not even make that much sense when the US State Department says Guyana’s “stock of external debt grew by 16% in 2008 to $833.7 million, reflecting disbursements for multilateral projects along with bilateral loans. Debt service payments increased by 11% to $21 million. The government continued its effort to secure and conclude debt relief arrangements with all bilateral and remaining commercial creditors on terms comparable to those obtained from the Paris Club. Guyana concluded a debt cancellation agreement with Venezuela, which wrote off 100% of the $12 million outstanding debt.” What makes greater sense is if they can show up every day for a good-paying, long-term job. My point is, the government has to reach the people at their core point of need, not with abstract stats and data that mean nothing to the people, hence their eagerness to find greener pastures.

I was mind-numbingly shocked to read a letter written by a Bajan, defending his government’s handling of ‘illegals’ in Barbados, which said there are more than 30,000 Guyanese living there! If this is true, this is outrageous, because Barbados is only 166 square miles and a huge increase in the number of foreigners taking up permanent residence is bound to put pressure on existing systems and infrastructures, even if most are contributing to the country’s economic well-being. Barbados either takes steps to save itself from tanking, or if it wants to keep Guyanese and other foreigners, it must improve its infrastructures and systems. Pity Guyana is not doing enough to keep Guyanese at home.

To the President and his apologists, it is one thing to be commended for obtaining debt forgiveness by simply adhering to the IMF/WB rules and borrowing fresh loans or even tapping into local reserves to undertake social services projects and brag about these as progress, but these are not sound enough reasons to constitute a good legacy. I said earlier that the President can redeem his sagging legacy by restoring public confidence in government, to which his spinners decided to make debt relief the basis for such a legacy. Now I have to add the need for the President to create many medium to long-term jobs (that put money in people’s pockets so they won’t want to leave) and generate foreign income to augment the role of loans in development. Whatever the President does must directly impact the people and the people must know it and be talking about it without being prodded by political spinners. And this is where the rubber is not hitting the road for ordinary Guyanese who would love to make the connection between the benefits of debt relief and what they are actually facing on a daily basis. Unless government apologists figure out a way to help Guyanese make a connection between debt relief benefits and their ability to earn a decent living wage, the apologists are in for a rude awakening.

In closing, for Guyanese to better grasp the import of the President’s role in debt relief, please consider that when the PPP returned to power in 1992, Guyana’s foreign debt was US$2.1B. By adhering to the IMF/WB game plan, President Jagdeo managed to get over US$800M of that debt forgiven. Yet by the end of 2008, Guyana’s external debt stood at US$833.7M (another recent figure has it pegged at US$875M), so when we do the maths, Guyana had more debt forgiven than repaid, so that debt relief had as much to do with the benevolence of our creditors as it had to do with the compliant role President Jagdeo played. And for information purposes, based on a US State Department’s analysis, Guyana borrowed US$124M in 2008.

I have nothing against loans that go towards social development services – they are good loans – but I am against loans that end up being misused or misappropriated. Matter of fact, I am specifically against folks who criticize one party for running up a huge debt only to watch those folks turn around and misappropriate millions of dollars public funds, as per the Auditor-General’s last report and other glaring instances.

Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin