Dear Editor,
I write in reference to the recent article titled “Hughes urges all parties to craft joint 15-year development plan for Guyana,” published by Stabroek News. While the suggestion by the Alliance For Change (AFC) to create a comprehensive development plan for the nation is commendable, there are several challenges that make the proposal difficult to actualize as a social contract with the Guyanese people.
First, the proposal necessitates a broad consensus among political parties, which has historically proven elusive in Guyana’s polarized political landscape. The 2020 general election saw a turnout of over 70%, reflecting the deep political engagement among the populace. However, this engagement often translates into entrenched partisan divides. The distrust between major political entities, exacerbated by past controversies and disputes over electoral outcomes, has consistently hindered collaboration. Without overcoming this distrust, any attempt at a unified long-term plan is likely to face significant resistance, leading to stagnation rather than progress.
Second, the implementation of a 15-year development plan would require consistent and stable leadership across multiple election cycles. In a nation where the average tenure of an administration has been roughly five years, the risk of political turnover is substantial. For instance, from 1992 to 2020, Guyana experienced five different administrations, each with varying priorities and policies. This frequent shift in power poses a high risk that subsequent administrations may not honour the commitments made by their predecessors, undermining the continuity necessary for long-term development. The lack of continuity could result in policy reversals, delays in project implementation, and a loss of public confidence in the government’s ability to deliver on its promises.
Third, the diverse needs and expectations of the Guyanese population present a significant challenge in forging a social contract that satisfies all stakeholders. Unlike more homogeneous societies such as Japan or Korea, where a shared cultural and ethnic background can facilitate consensus on national development goals, Guyana’s heterogeneous population requires a more nuanced approach. For example, data from the 2012 census indicate that Guyana’s ethnic composition is diverse, with Indo-Guyanese (39.8%), Afro-Guyanese (29.3%), and mixed heritage (19.9%) populations forming the majority.
The AFC’s proposal, while ambitious, may struggle to adequately address the varying priorities of these different communities, potentially leading to disenchantment and resistance from those who feel their concerns are not being sufficiently prioritized. Moreover, the dynamic nature of global and local economic conditions over a 15-year period could further complicate efforts to maintain a relevant and effective development strategy.
While the idea of a joint development plan holds promise, these challenges must be carefully considered and addressed to ensure any proposed social contract is both realistic and capable of delivering the intended benefits to the Guyanese people. A 15-year plan requires not only political will but also the flexibility to adapt to unforeseen changes, both domestically and internationally. Without such adaptability, the risk of failure is high, leaving the country worse off than before.
Sincerely,
Keith Bernard
