Dear Editor,
Further debate on the government’s education cash grant must be encouraged. I, for one, hope the debate develops into a national conversation on the need for and the nature of a comprehensive social protection system, aimed at the quadruple goals of poverty elimination, social inclusion, equality, and economic development. The political party that most seriously commits to using Guyana’s oil wealth to urgently achieve these goals is the party most likely to expand its public support. Despite the stinginess of the PPP’s “Because we care” programme, it has taken first jump.
I write here to rebut a few misguided positions on the subject I noted in the local media. First, the modern progressive view of social protection has long moved on “from paupers receiving doles to citizens claiming rights”. Modern social protection is now driven by the desire to give real meaning to those lofty but dormant constitutional and global commitments on social and economic rights of citizens. The Guyana constitution, for example, speaks about freedom from “hunger, ignorance, and want” (Article 40). It speaks about rights to housing, education, health, leisure, and so on. It speaks about the state intervening to prevent the harmful effects of economic competition on groups and individuals (Article 15). The goals of modern social welfare have long outgrown the concerns of William Beveridge, regarded as the father of the British welfare state, that the phrase implied a “Santa Claus state”. The government’s current education cash grant is therefore not charity. It is an entitlement of citizenship. As such, “Because we care” should be more aptly named ”Because it’s yours.”
Second, some have bemoaned the risk of dependency—that cash grants and other such support are a dreadful and stigmatizing thing because recipients can become dependent on the government. But citizens depend on their government for a lot of help. So, I am not sure where is the divide (if any should exist) between good dependency and bad dependency. No one has ever complained that free education, free health, school-nutrition programmes, or state pensions are dependency-creating? How does such state assistance differ fundamentally from cash grants? Arguments that paint any form of social provision as handouts and dependency-forming heartlessly stigmatize recipients. People must not be made to feel ashamed to receive their share of the national wealth.
Third, critics of the education cash grant have mostly ignored the economic benefits to local communities and small businesses of releasing billions of dollars of cash into the hands of citizens. As the government rolls out its limited “Because we care” programme with fanfare, it is evident that creating a comprehensive social protection system is not on its mind. We hear absolutely no talk of how our oil wealth would be used to create a Scandinavian-style care society. Such a society must be based upfront on a holistic social protection policy. At the moment, Guyana has no such policy. Filling this vacuum gives the opposition parties a golden opportunity to both gain greater relevance and to capture the public imagination and support. The policy’s core principles must include (i) no Guyanese must be left behind, (ii) social protection as a right of citizenship, and (iii) social protection as a life cycle guarantee (from womb to tomb).
The policy should identify the specific goals of social protection to be (i) poverty elimination, (ii) social inclusion, (iii) equality for all, (iv) economic development, and (v) national disaster and emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. Coverage should strive towards universalism (all citizens must be entitled, such as in the recent COVID relief), with programmes targeting special groups only where effective. The forms of social protection should include social insurance/security, social assistance, subsidies, tax relief, and social services. Let us build a total care society.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Lowe
