Dear Editor,
Recent events have drawn attention to the troubling absence of independent professional contributions to public discourse on things taking place in Guyanese society. Political types dominate the airwaves, even when a competent, technical input is called for, which is surely not the best thing in our politically polarized atmosphere. The media do a good job of giving the opportunity for independent expression, but one gets the sense of a reluctance by independent professionals to engage publicly possibly for fear of annoying a powerful politician.
This contrasts with what you find typical of other free societies. If we take the example of the pandemic response, in other countries one hears not only from political leaders, but also from leading professionals of the health and scientific communities. The professional sector has a profound role in the development of a country like Guyana. Professionals help to establish science over opinion and bring objectivity and credibility in controversial areas. They can also give the sense of a place for public opinion in the design and execution of projects that affect people’s daily lives. Of particular importance in the Guyanese context, they can give stability and continuity to a development process, providing a stable backbone to a process characterized by political change.
This absence of independent professional input and analysis struck me recently while listening to discussions about the recent flooding in Guyana. True enough, the attention being paid to the problem by national and regional leaders was welcome (how could it possibly be ignored?), but I found myself wondering where were the engineers, the drainage and irrigation specialists, the agricultural and environmental experts? Is it possible that we could learn from in-depth, data-driven analyses of the patterns of rainfall, areas being flooded, the structures in place to meet the challenges and what further measures are needed? Studies of these issues and valuable institutional memory exist but lie gathering dust. This absence of competent professional contribution to public discourse on major matters is just another symptom of the institutional weakness affecting how public affairs are managed and conducted in this country. One is led to wonder if experts can only come from abroad.
I am no drainage and irrigation expert, but I cannot resist the temptation to express a view. As I understand it, this was a case of excessive rainfall and not the usual sea threat to coastal dwelling, and therefore this may not be the usual issue of poor coastal drainage. This threat has always been anticipated which, as I understand it, is part of the reason for the ‘backdam’ and the conservancy catchment areas. Anyone familiar with the interior areas would be aware of watermarks that show how the river levels vary significantly and regularly.
I fear that in times to come, we can expect this kind of flooding to become more frequent and severe as a result of climatic changes. Just look at what is happening in other parts of the world. A similar episode of flooding is happening in Europe right at this time, with deaths reported. The recent Guyana flooding event is also a warning for those who see movement of population centres inland as a panacea for our climatic woes. For a population accustomed to flat coastal dwelling, movement southward while desirable, will bring new challenges and necessary adjustments as the population must learn how to cope with unfamiliar physical environments.
Sincerely,
Dr. Desmond Thomas
