Dear Editor,
Ravi Dev, in his two recent letters to SN, displayed a surprising looseness with facts and a lightness of analysis, given his (deserved) reputation as one steeped in conceptual and factual knowledge. In the first letter on September 16th (“For the PNC it is more about changing the rules of the game to get into power”) he accused the opposition of being historically indifferent to a “rule-based order” and constitutional change. Here, Dev, for one, completely ignored the track record of the Granger administration in giving life to several reforms from the 1999/2000 constitution reform process that were in cold storage under the PPP before 2015. Examples include: (i) the passage of local government legislation, the establishment of the Local Government Commission, and the running of two local government elections; (ii) measures to increase the autonomy of constitutional and statutory bodies; and (iii) measures to enhance public accountability and transparency through, for example, the re-establishment of the Integrity Commission and the activation of the Public Procurement Commission. Outside of these constitution-level reforms, but of no less importance, are the several high-level Acts of Parliament that sought to enshrine “a rule-based order”.
Take, as exhibit one, the APNU+AFC’s Natural Resources Fund Act with its robust provisions for withdrawal, monitoring, transparency, and stakeholder participation. The case is not that the Granger administration can escape blame for its sloth in pursuing another constitutional reform project. My case is that Dev’s analysis is deficient and his conclusions wrong by ignoring the Coalition government’s total parliamentary record. Dev’s second letter in SN 18th September, “LAPOP survey suggests vast majority of Guyanese want a strong leader handing out bread”, is even more disappointing. In it, Dev is careless in talking about such ideas as economic well-being, improving “the lot of the poor” and “bread”. As such, he believes the PPP has the right development plan by focusing on “infrastructure and job creation while unleashing a welter of cash and other material infusions into communities.” But those are not measures of “bread” and economic wellbeing. Nor are they policies that will sustainably and systematically deliver them. Proper measures and policies must deal with poverty, inequality, quality of life, livable incomes (not just jobs for the working poor), full employment, life-cycle social care and protection, women empowerment and the other criteria captured in any modern human development index.
The PPP’s efforts (such as they are) cannot and will not comprehensively advance Guyana on these development imperatives. For that matter, the country is now in reverse gear on human development. With soaring cost-of-living, dwindling purchasing power, and inept government, poverty, inequality, and national despair are on the rise under the PPP. Does Dev dispute this? Can he sensibly challenge the recent (January 2022) poll conducted by The International Republican Institute (IRI), whose results tell us that about 60% of our young people do not think they have “a good future”? Does he dispute the findings of the same IRI poll that most Guyanese believe the country is pointing in the wrong direction? I am reminded of a comment Dev once made back in the days on his CNS CH 6 show: “Even my grandmother can spend money better than the PPP.I believed Dev then—and still do.
Dev further contends that the Opposi-tion’s counter to the PPP’s development plan is to claim that the PPP ‘is in the process of constructing an “unjust state” in Guyana.’ To debunk this politically-devious spin from Dev, let me make two points. First, the Opposition has no hesitation in describing the PPP’s cash transfers and other efforts as discriminatory, knee-jerk, unpredictable, and inadequate; they are unfit to end poverty and inequality and to improve the quality of life of households. Guyana will realize, for instance, none of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (such as ending poverty by 2030) should PPP remain in government. Secondly, what is the Opposition proposing instead? The APNU+AFC has advanced a people-first national development vision. There are several ideas to unpack here.
In brief, first, a people-first approach is a total life cycle (from womb-to-tomb) commitment to guaranteeing each citizen and family a decent quality of life. Second, a people-first approach ensures all citizens can fully enjoy (not only their political rights) but also their constitutionally-guaranteed socioeconomic rights and entitlements by systematically ending poverty, reducing the gap between the haves and the have-nots, promoting social cohesion and inclusion, and economically empowering people. Third, a people-first approach rejects the PPP’s trickle-down economics and other indirect approaches as the main drivers of human development. Fourth, it must ensure that society promotes and justly rewards hard work, initiatives, achievements, sacrifices, and investments. Fifth, a people-first approach must be predictable, structured, comprehensive, politically blind, and treat citizens, their families, and communities with dignity. Finally, could Dev explain what is “strong” about President Ali? Is it the arrogance, disdain, and misplaced bravado he shows towards ordinary folks?
Sincerely,
Sherwood Lowe
