As Guyana celebrates its 59th Anniversary as an Independent Nation, it faces many challenges, just as it did in earlier years. Converting a dependence syndrome into a sense of independence, creating the institutional structures of an independent nation, embarking on economic transformation, confronting the challenges of a deeply divided nation, negotiating a way between the raindrops of the Cold War, securing political power and dealing with the fallout, finding a way out of a colonial economy, and failing, unsuccessfully fending off the slow imposition of dictatorial rule, were some of the early challenges. Guyana’s earlier decades saw only modest economic growth, not sufficient to change reality on the ground, until oil prices went up in the mid-1970s. To cope, the seizure of high profits from the sugar industry, deprived it of capital, the effects of which are being felt today. The destruction of the rice industry took place by the early abandonment of the Cuban market and the nationalization of sale and marketing. The damage caused to these two vital areas of the economy, coupled with the loss of the vote of a section of the population, thereby depriving them of a voice, the later banning of food, affected one section of the population. The fears generated by the final restoration of democracy in 1992, affected the other. The ease with which Guyana can revert to the past by post-election violence, other mass activity sprinkled with sudden upsurges of unrest, and a pre-1992 electoral past, have all shaped the political attitudes and discourses which we experience today. The Opposition walkout from Parliament on Friday last, sad having regard to the Venezuelan threat, has its roots in this past history. Can it be changed?
The question to be asked is that does Guyana need to change its political trajectory? Both political parties seem to think so. The strong campaign in the PNC in the late 1980s was capped by Desmond Hote’s acceptance of shared governance, which was a political sea change from the Desmond Hoyte we grew up with in his opposition years. The PNC then promised shared governance in its manifesto for the 2020 elections. But it was the PPP that started it in the 1970s by offering ‘critical support’ to what it defined as positive developments and later, in 1977, a national patriotic front and government in 1977 with the PPP taking second position to the PNC, whatever the outcome of free and fair elections. The PPP did not go forward in 1992 with its ideas of governance but went backward in 2001 by proposing an advanced form of collaboration only after building “trust and confidence” due after the constitutional reforms then taking place. The PNC collaborated in the reforms, but nothing materialized thereafter. If the warring parties in Northern Ireland were to wait for trust and confidence, they would still be killing each other. In fact, the Good Friday Agreement has endured.
Guyana’s wait for “trust and confidence,” which many supported in 2001, including the diplomatic community, because it had a specific time frame, namely, the end of the constitution reform process, now effectively means that the PNC must behave itself before it can sniff the corridors of power. Well, no self-respecting party, which the PNC is, will succumb to what some tell their children: “Behave if you want a piece of chocolate.” I have never spoken seriously to any PNC member about these matters, or for that matter to any PPP member within recent times, but I believe that if Mr. Norton is to be approached with a plan for a higher level of cooperation, he will not decline such an invitation. But no doubt, reading between the lines of his recent statement, he will be looking for some bona fides. Whether or not he is right or wrong, the opposing side has to contend with such an approach. “The more you give the more they want” is a common refrain. Well, Cheddi Jagan was like that.
All of the above was never initially in my thoughts when I started to write. I intended to point to the challenges Guyana faces. In fact, I started out as follows: “Guyana faces both a great future as well as an existential threat. No Guyanese will have any difficulty in ascertaining where the future lies and from whence the existential threat emanates. In fact, they are integrally connected because Venezuela claims that the area of the Stabroek Block and of Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), where Guyana’s oil wealth resides, is within its territory. Foaming at the mouth in feigned anger at Guyana’s sovereignty over Essequibo, the fraudulently elected ‘President’ Maduro simultaneously drips greed for Guyana’s oil as he fulminates against Exxon.” I will have to deal with this at another time but as indicated by the walk-out by the Opposition in Parliament on Friday during the debate of a crucial motion that sought to portray a united nation in rejecting Venezuela’s fraudulent elections in Essequibo fixed for today, better relations between the Government and Opposition are vital both for Guyana’s economic transformation and to defeat Venezuela’s threats. Maybe we can begin to create the conditions for “trust and confidence,” the burden being on the Government to make the initial efforts because they hold political power.