By Dr Bertrand G. Ramcharan
Guyana has been a fractured nation throughout its history and remains so. There was a short period in the early 1950s when a nationalist movement sought to take the country to independence in unity. But, as would be revealed in a short time span, even it had fissures that would lead to separation before long. The machinations of great powers exacerbated these fissures.

The country saw riots in the early 1960s and racial attacks in the aftermath of elections in the 1990s and early twenty first century. There has hardly been a period of time since the country obtained independence in 1966 of which it could be said that the nation was truly united behind its development goals and potential. There were periods of higher growth rates but these were in each instance superseded by periods of divisions. The development of the country has lagged seriously. Large parts of its population live in dire poverty.

How does a country get out of this predicament? Negotiated solutions on governance could be one way. Inspiring leadership across party lines could be another. When young President Jagdeo came into office voices could be heard that Guyana had entered new times and young people were prepared to give him a chance to take the country into a new path. This, alas, has not succeeded and the reasons for this have to do with the ethos of his party and the personality of the individual. It would be fair to say that the other parties have not yet thrown up figures who can inspire the nation and take it along a unified path.

In such a situation, how does a country set its public policy objectives? Its President sets out objectives at the start of a term but there is not the kind of constructive debate in Parliament on these objectives that could lead to the distillation of national policies that would attract a consensus.

Policy objectives could emerge from initiatives in Parliament. But in the partisan spirit that has characterised successive parliaments there have been only a few instances in which it could be said that a national consensus has emerged out of this body. The 2010 Sexual Offences Act may be an exception to this record.

Different parties vying for power have manifestoes in which they offer policies and ideas for the future of the nation. But once elections are over and the winning party takes power there is little evidence of policy cross-fertilisation among the leading parties. There are certainly ways of seeking such cross-fertilization but the sad truth of the matter is that it has not occurred so far.

High-minded Guyanese associations or individuals might come up with policy proposals to help take the nation forward but these are mostly met with partisan reactions on the part of those in government –whichever party occupies the seat of government. There is an attitude that the party knows best. The nation is thus denied the benefits of the thinking of its citizens.

Some countries have established Institutes of Public Policy to help overcome problems such as these and even fund their institutes. Unfortunately, for the time being this does not seem to be an option for Guyana. The difficulties in obtaining consensus on the leadership and membership of the five constitutional commissions suggest that the governing party is operating, for the most part, in control mode.

We are thus left with the difficulties of policy formation in a fractured nation and we need to think of ways of overcoming this hurdle. The country needs to be able to draw upon the best thinking of its people as it searches for ways of moving forward. This cannot be left to the whims of any party, the paramount party of erstwhile days, or the vanguard party of our times.

A good case study of the inadequacies of the policy formation process and of the implementation of public policy is provided by the statement of President Jagdeo when he addressed Parliament at the commencement of his current term. Three things stand out from a perusal of this address: first, there were some ideas for national healing in this speech. Second, some of the policies have been implemented. But third, the indispensable requirements for development in a fractured state have remained lacking: a national consensus on governance and broad-based confidence in the nation about the policy directions of the government for the future of the country.

President Jagdeo, in his address to the ninth Parliament of Guyana on 28 September, 2006 interpreted the results of the preceding elections as a mandate from the people for continuity of government’s policies and programmes, a debatable proposition to say the least. His vision was one in which the core elements of the tasks towards political transformation would include constitutional and legislative reforms that would involve all political parties represented in Parliament, and the wider civil society. He advocated “meaningful engagement with all political parties; reform of the legislative and judicial branches of government; and continuous engagement of the progressive civil society in the governance of this country”. Would it be to fair to say that none of this has been implemented?

President Jagdeo sounded earnest: “we will have to build trust at the political level and create political space for all. Violence and threats should give way to dialogue, and the development of our country should remain paramount in all of our political discourse.” These were fine statements of public policy at the rhetorical level, but it would not be unfair to say that implementation has been lacking, for whatever reasons.

The next part of President Jagdeo’s speech was an explicit ‘Policy Agenda’: “My government’s policy agenda for the next five years is rooted in the primacy of our people, forged by our previous experiences, tempered by the challenges we face, and fortified in our belief that our policies are sound for our generation and generations to come.” The vanguard party was in full motion.

As his policy agenda, President Jagdeo set out four specific goals: First, on economic growth policy, he declared that his policy would be to expand the revenue base of the country by growing the economy, and through greater tax efficiency. Second, he put forth the goals of revitalizing the bauxite industry and reforming the sugar sector. Third, on external trade dependence, the President noted that Guyana has always been a primary commodity exporter and that this trend will have to be reversed. This, he said, could be done by the private sector engaging in value-added activities. Fourth, on ‘Emerging Sectors’ he said that the sectors of agro-processing, eco-tourism, information technology and aquaculture held a lot of promise for job creation.

We shall leave aside, for the moment, the question of the implementation of these policy goals. For present purposes, the question that deserves to be posed is whether these were the optimal policy goals of a fractured society. The rest of the speech of the President referred to the need for a deep port harbour; a possible rail link in the mining rich areas of Berbice and Linden; and a highway to Brazil. He then mentioned the need to tackle issues of security and crime and proceeded to external relations. A broad area of his policy agenda would be increased international cooperation and the improvement of our image abroad. He expressed support for the principles of Caricom, the Millennium Development Goals, and saw the need to give priority to economic diplomacy.

Issues of governance came next and here the President was encouraging in rhetoric: “I believe that we have to make a more concerted effort to overcome our political divisions so that we can create the sort of environment that would allow for the creation of wealth and consequently for addressing the social concerns of our people.”

He continued: “Consistent with this thrust towards inclusive governance will be the fashioning of a new political culture, one which I have cautioned cannot be contrived, or rushed, but must be allowed to find its natural fit within our body politic. My government will pursue parliamentary and constitutional reforms… In addition, I have already signalled my intention to join forces with the political opposition and find innovative ways to work together to solve our problems.”

Were these policies implemented, and if not, why not?

There will in all probability be different explanations for the lack of implementation for the most part. The most pertinent question, from our point of view, is who could have scrutinised the content and implementation of these policies. The answer would have to be Parliament. But in Parliament the vanguard party gets its way, and in Parliament, to use an apt phrase from a late president, “the small man is the real man”.

What does the foregoing say about the policy process in Guyana – content as well as implementation? It would probably be a fair answer to say that the vanguard party carries the day in rhetoric as well as in implementation. The President’s statement epitomised this: “our policies are sound for our generation and generations to come”.

But policy formulation and implementation cannot be left to the vanguard party alone. The distribution of electoral support and the level of sophistication of the voting public probably indicates that public reasoning might have a hard time influencing who is elected to govern and on what policies. And therein lies the tragedy of Guyana. The country desperately needs a movement or personality of confidence, vision, and daring to cut through the contemporary orthodoxies in the allegiance of the people and to take the country to a morally higher ground.