Mr Skinner, in his letter dated November 25, captioned ‘No suggestion that anyone should stop their activism’ stated, “It is in no way my intension to ‘let the government off the hook’ in relation to fulfilling its responsibilities to the masses… What I am worried about is the disregard for the bigger picture and that is what I am addressing.”
I think this is a very important injection into the debate. Are there other factors that militate against wealth creation by Afro-Guyanese? I would suggest indeed there are and we need to spend some time and space to examine them. We should document the specifics as these relate to government policies and actions. We should compile a list of persons and companies who feel that government by its acts or omissions may have restricted their efforts to become businessmen.
There are those who suggest that ‘friendism,’ nepotism and willingness to pay/accept bribes may be real factors worth considering as opposed to race. There are a number of persons of various ethnicities who have complained of facing problems in their drive to establish businesses. There are those who succeeded.
There is also the question of risk-taking: to defer today’s consumption to be able to generate greater consumption capacity later. There is the fact that some had family wealth or assets that they could use as capital or collateral. Some had families overseas willing to help or actually lived abroad themselves and had a culture that inculcated the habit of saving, rather than participating in immediate and conspicuous consumption.
Let’s not forget that some stole from their bosses and became capitalists, while also others stole from them.
There are cultural patterns, like children’s property which prevents property from effectively being used as collateral. The indoctrination into the capitalist conspicuous consumption ethic as opposed to a save and invest one, the family structure, and the role of parents or lack thereof are important considerations. The effect of serial polygamy and polyandry; the absence of a father in the home; too many children to care for properly also should be considered.
Are we to consider the way the banks operate, the high interest rates, the fact that the bulk of the savings are controlled by foreign shareholders who are only interested in high returns on their investments which are then exported? Is there an ethnic dimension to the way banks give loans?
If the profits are not reinvested then there would not be job creation. There would be little growth and high unemployment. There is a correlation between high unemployment, poverty and crime.
I am sure there is a lot more, and while I am sure that some of the issues I mentioned may be controversial, that is beside the point. The acceptance and appreciation of additional factors other than government have to be recognized and discussed.
Mr Skinner made the point that “our forefathers lived by a principle, which suggests that the present generation is responsible for laying the foundation for future generations.” Based on this principle the present generation would have received the baton from the previous generation.
If we do not think less selfishly then there would not be much hope.
The diaspora can examine in a meaningful manner what roles they can play. While talk and intellectual interjections are ok and ‘blogging’ cool, maybe, just maybe, they can rise to more material and corporate wealth and job-creating interjections besides remittances to the immediate family.
While government has its role and no doubt has been neglecting it, we here and over there have one too.
Yours faithfully,
Rajendra Bisessar
