Starting last year, the government has made various announcements of one-time cash grants to diverse groups for a variety of reasons, these were in addition to the contentious and inadequate one-off $25,000 distributed to each household that was meant to supplement lost earnings as a response to the economic deprivation wrought by the COVID-19 restrictions. They are also apart from the now on-again educational grant given to households with school-aged children.
The largest, to date, was that made in October last year by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo of $250,000 to workers who had been severed when the sugar estates where they were employed were closed under the previous administration; he had estimated their number to be around 7,000. Last month, President Irfaan Ali announced that over 5,000 fisherfolk would receive $150,000 each in view of the decline in catches, which has had a negative economic impact on their lives. Last week, the President also announced that a once-only $100,000 grant would be given to children with disabilities (tentatively numbered as around 1,200) when he met them and their parents at State House and after listening to their myriad problems. There have also been handouts to farmer groups deemed to have taken an economic hit recently.
The government’s obvious magnanimity has raised some eyebrows and questions about the motive behind the announcements coming not from the ministries or the sector heads as the case may be, but the president and vice-president. However, to call a spade a spade, such questions are nothing less than disingenuous when asked by politicians among whom the saviour complex is par for the course anywhere you go. Moreover, a look at this country’s history would provide few if any examples of announcements of munificence by any of its governments having been made differently.
Meanwhile, as probably should have been expected, the question now arises as to whether other affected and vulnerable groups might experience the same largesse. Is there a lavish hand outstretched to, for example, adults with disabilities who are in dire financial straits? What about old-age pensioners and other marginalised groups? Already, there has been a formal request made by Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica) Regional Chairman Daniel Seeram on behalf of the residents of his region, via a letter to the editor published in this newspaper on June 1.
While the conditions befalling those who have benefited thus far cannot be argued with, there is no escaping the fact that the global pandemic precipitated a disproportionate threat to many of the already vulnerable, who might not necessarily fall within any of the aforementioned beneficiary categories. On the other hand, there could very well be families that fall into two or three of the groups. And unless serious cross-checking was done, which does not seem to be the case given the ad-hoc nature of the handouts, there might be families raking in windfalls while others remain bereft.
With regard to the cash grants, in each instance, accompanying measures to be instituted were also declared. Among these were skills training for the former sugar workers, aquaculture development for the fisherfolk, and care and business centres to benefit children with disabilities. In truth, the measures as outlined are far more valuable than the once-only payments, and, if effectively implemented, could really redound to the benefit of those targeted. Taken altogether, this is in reality, to paraphrase writer Anne Isabella Thackeray Ritchie, ‘giving a man a fish as well as teaching him to catch’. It would be truly admirable if, in this case, the fish were more equitably shared. And surely, given his ‘One Guyana’ slogan, this is what President Ali intends.
There is a local tendency to use the phrase ‘welfare state’ with some amount of contempt. In fact it is an admirable model to emulate and one in place in many Western European countries that have managed to drive poverty levels down and raise the quality of life of their citizens. Indeed, Guyana has been struggling to follow such a model and could still do so if policies were streamlined and systems put in place that actually work. By definition, a welfare state is one where the government establishes institutions that protect the well-being of citizens. According to Britannica.com, national insurance, financed by compulsory contributions from citizens, is a fundamental feature of a welfare state. Other features include, but are not limited to, free education and health services, as well as poverty alleviation programmes and in some instances, free or low-cost housing provided on a means basis.
The money to fund all this usually comes from taxation, where the wealthiest pay the most. It is a system that does not always function as it should. When it doesn’t, governments are forced to foot the necessary expenditure and that can prove problematic. In our case it need not be; the much hyped oil wealth could be put to use. Critics of the welfare state believe that it engenders dependence and can be easily abused. However, there are proven measures that prevent these ills that have been successfully implemented in several Scandinavian countries, which should not be difficult here given our small population. This being the case, there is nothing, except perhaps political will, preventing government from truly taking care of the population, beginning with the most vulnerable.
