In letters to the editor, during 2008 and 2009 I attempted to demonstrate some fairly obvious flaws in the government’s chosen response to the challenges facing single parents, the ill-conceived President’s Youth Choice Initiative, and the administration’s unimaginative response to the growth in delinquency and youth crime. The school uniform distribution programme also demonstrates this government’s preference for giving hand-outs. Instead of using the millions allotted to this programme ($55M in 2008 and again in 2009) they could have organised the recipients so they became involved in activities that would have satisfied some need in their respective communities, while making them earners. By subjecting them to hand-outs, the government is destroying their self-esteem, their sense of self-worth.
Then we have the government’s response to the street children phenomenon. It has three elements: reuniting children with their homes; reintegrating them into the school system; and
placing them in homes run by the government or a non-governmental organization.
At a casual glance this seems laudable; however, except for the first activity, the other two are highly questionable. In the Philippines and Brazil, countries that have been battling long before us with this problem, approaches two and three have been discredited. It has been found that placing street children in the normal school system is unhelpful, because their presence and behaviour give rise to a growth in unacceptable behaviour among the regular students. The street child, it was found, was not inclined to respect the long-established values of the school, and not readily inclined to respect teachers, for example, as most children are. With this understanding there is the new approach of taking the school to where the children are – the streets. Recently CNN and BBC news have been showing us how this is working in the Philippines. So what is it that informed our approach?
In the Chronicle of April 8 in relation to the lowering of the legal age at which children can work, Minister Nadir was quoted as saying, “We have to make decisions on evidence, empirical data.” Yet most of us, and apparently the international community too, see no evidence that this is being done.
So why does the government, even when it should know better, still pursue inappropriate programmes? I think this behaviour speaks to the very nature of many of its ministers and other senior functionaries. For them keeping their jobs and privileges is more important than seriously tackling the many social problems we have here in Guyana. So, for them just doing something, anything, is enough. This government believes that once it shows intent to act, that’s enough. People will feel compelled to praise it for at least ‘trying’; thus appearance becomes more important than substance. Vic George and Paul Wilding in their book The Impact of Social Policy help us to understand how this works. These writers argue that “the easing of social problems through social service provision shows the existing political order in a new light. It appears as benevolent and caring, not concerned simply for profits, growth and order, but as concerned too, for individual citizens and their needs. The established order assumes a new legitimacy and so attracts new sources of legality.”
Therefore, even when the government has been offered progressive ways of helping the poor to cater for their needs, it continues to favour programmes that are mere hand-outs in practice, and do not enhance the capacity of the poor to do for themselves This is all about placing the poor in a position of being beholden to the government. Thus when these deprived groups are encouraged to stand up to the government for doing little they say, ‘but the government is trying; look, they gave us shirts for our children, we can’t march against them, we can’t picket their offices.’ For this government it’s all about looking good rather than being effective.
That is why residents on the East Coast spoke about a certain Minister taking foodstuff to them during the flood in 2005, informing them that “de President send food fo yuh,” while the entire disaster was, from appearances, being mishandled.
It’s why the Minister of Home Affairs, even as we seem to be drowning in a sea of crime, offers as his primary defence, a reminder to us that the government is spending more money today on crime-fighting than any other government ever did. It is why our Minister of Human Services and Social Security, after every act of child or spousal abuse feels contented to tell us she is working on drafting legislation. Or reminds us what legislation she has successfully piloted through parliament, while initiating weak and disjointed programmes at the community level to deal with same. It’s the reason why Minister Ramsammy busies himself encouraging us to walk miles for health, or organises health fairs, while every day citizens cry out about the atrocious service being provided at the state hospitals.
And it is the reason why the government continues to refuse to permit the Mayor and City Council to engage in activities designed to enhance its revenue base. The city council must look bad, thus allowing the benevolent government to inform the nation that it will be giving the city help to the sum of x dollars. It’s all about making citizens feel indebted to this government, and to a large extent they have succeeded, as we, silly citizens, celebrate their efforts, even though their intervention strips us of our pride and dignity.
Yours faithfully,
Claudius Prince
