`Internal and external threats have now surfaced and made telling impacts on the twin processes of democratic renewal and national development.'

October 5 marked the ninth anniversary of the restoration of democracy through the first free and fair elections in almost three decades here.

Dr. Roger Luncheon, Head of the Presidential Secretariat and leading member of the governing People's Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), was the feature speaker at a ceremony to mark the anniversary at the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre in Georgetown.

His theme was democracy and development. Here are excerpts from his address.

THE significance of October 9th 1992 has been established for all Guyanese.

On that day, the PNC regime that held power in Guyana since 1964, was rejected through free and fair elections and the PPP/C came to office.

The promises that the PPP/C held out to Guyanese in its many decades in opposition and in its manifesto of 1992 were then ready for implementation under the new administration led by Dr. Cheddi Jagan.

Today, I plan to use this opportunity, celebrating the 9th anniversary of that memorable day and event to illustrate the nexus, in the case of Guyana, between democracy and development.

Let me start by stating my reverence for the adage that one should not forget the past.

Today in Guyana the past seems to be treated as events to be recalled and to be invoked on special occasions and for special purposes. I for one am decidedly at odds with that development.

Allow me then to commence this presentation with a reminder about the not so distant past when, during the last days of the PNC regime, the Administration reversed its failed course of Cooperative Socialism with the implementation of the Economic Recovery Programme. That unheralded an undemocratic intervention and its shocking impact on society led to further deterioration of the already contracted economy and more developmental decline.

That, ladies and gentlemen was one of the last undemocratic acts of the PNC, and according to my thesis, heralded their removal from office.

The records would show that from 1968 onwards, the PNC regime had rigged its way to power under both Presidents Burnham and Hoyte.

Hoyte's ERP was forced on Guyanese and its immediate impact was social degradation.

Pro-democracy forces led by the People's Progressive Party's Dr. C. Jagan inspired Guyanese to work together for change through the difficult and complicated task of removing the dictatorship.

Indeed, without the disciplined involvement of Western Governments and a loss of resolve in 1992 by the then Pres. Hoyte, the last nine years of the Republic may have been written differently.

Guyanese in 1992 opted for change, the return of democracy.

What actually did the "Return of Democracy create"? What can be measured?

Democracy has a compelling array of measurement indicators with varying degrees of applicability. These include:

1. Electoral systems that can be characterised according to their content of representation and representativeness.

2. Accountability that can be measured in all of its aspects.

3. Devolution of the political power of the Executive Branch of Government can be assessed.

4. The administration of justice can be investigated.

5. Respect for civil, political, social, cultural and economic rights can be measured and thus protected.

First and foremost, the renewal of democracy created expectations among Guyanese that results of good governance on social wellbeing would be forthcoming.

Immediately, I want to focus on that matter of "Expectations."

There was clear recognition that the new Administration had so much time to rectify the situation and restore some amount of normalcy.

New faces had to replace the corrupt, unethical and dishonourable, the square pegs in round holes.

There had to be resumption of the delivery of social goods and services.

Poverty reduction and eradication had to be highlighted.

The PPP/Civic Administration saw the immediate need to restore the content of Guyana's democracy not as an end in itself but as an important force for development.

Dr. Jagan emphasised that economic growth was clearly a prerequisite for national development but lack of democracy was a potent inhibitor.

That aspect of democracy that addressed the restoration of credibility of state and government institutions and the restoration of process clearly warranted immediate attention.

That was governance, governance that spoke to the imperative of creating and popularising new and sound principles of management of the nation state and its affairs.

The PPP/C saw good governance as applied democracy, democracy in action.

Let us now examine some of those interventions that highlighted the democratic renewal instituted by the PPP/C Administration.

Local Government elections were held in 1994 leading to the appointment of six municipal councils and 77 Local Democratic Organs Government, the NDCs.

The PPP/C Administration appointed an Integrity Commission with enforced provisions on asset declaration.

It re-introduced the annual presentation of Public Accounts and reformed the tendering and procurement processes.

Freedom of the Press
The PPP/C, whose history was steeped in the struggle for a free press was uncompromising in its attitude to press freedom.

More importantly, it was the provision of information about the decision making process that was highlighted.

The PPP/C acceded to the Optional Protocol of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and gave recognition of Economic Social and Cultural Rights.

The gender issue was addressed publicly in those early days with the legislation on abortion and on domestic violence.

The PPP/C committed itself to a policy of protecting real wages.

The PPP/C abolished import duties on basic food items and essential consumables.

Those were some of the earliest steps taken by the new administration.

They were expected and highly publicised and undeniably distanced the PPP/C Administration from the practices of the past.

The emphasis was on stressing process and on informing the society at large.

Process and its disclosure minimised the exercise of undue discretion.

The implication was that the PPP/C wanted results and outcomes and it was concerned that Guyanese knew and understood what processes contributed to and led to those results and outcomes.

Since results really mattered, the PPP/C reasoned Guyanese had to know about its underpinnings, about the process.

Those outcomes to which I refer here are the direct ones, arising directly and specifically from the impact of those interventions.

And the reviews have been overall favourable as the expected results have been achieved, maintained and documented.

But really, it was the palpable feel of a democracy being restored and enshrined that was the social objective and became the real outcome.

The PPP/C knew that a healthy democracy was capable of unleashing the potential of mobilised Guyanese, preparing them for the sacrifices and commitments that were essential for the revival of Guyanese society.

What we need to examine now is the PPP/C policy on development and more importantly its results and how those results and outcomes relate to the ways that democracy was restored in the society.

Development in Guyana must be seen as an outcome, as a result of the empowerment of the people. Societies develop because its citizens develop.

Our colonial and immediate postcolonial realities reflect societal distortions arising from calculatedly selective suppression of empowerment of Guyanese.

The 1992 PPP/C manifesto offered the way towards democratic renewal, economic growth and social development.

One of the tasks of social theorists is the measurement of development.

I need to join with those social scientists all over the world who knew that economic determinants could not properly define nor properly characterise the phenomenon of development.

Growth without development was possible. The Latin American military dictators showed the way.

Those conventional economic indicators have now had their uses better understood and what they measure better defined.

And because the use of economic indicators and their applicability are better understood today, the world has moved on with the task of better measuring development.

Just a small point on the role of measurement - to study any phenomenon, one has to be able to fully recognise and characterise it. That is what measurement indicators are all about.

To analyse the impact of interventions one has to have reliable and valid tools of measurement. Development is no exception and the minimum Human Development Index (HDI) has evolved as one main measurement tool for countries and for comparisons.

The HDI is thus one of the yardsticks by which governments are measured with regards to the results from the implementation of their developmental agenda.

The PPP/C reasoned that the critical player in the implementation of Guyana's developmental agenda was Guyanese themselves.

Thus mobilisation in defence of their welfare was seen as a prerequisite for their development.

Good governance and democratic renewal were the clarion calls for the mobilisation.

Thus in 1993 the then Pres C. Jagan committed to the elaboration of a National Developmental Agenda, conceived the process for the creation of a National Development Strategy.

The procurement and the allocation, the use of the resources available for development were also other critical areas.

In its strategy for procurement, the PPP/C targeted concessional financing and debt relief.

In its strategy for allocation, the PPP/C targeted the social sector and the economic infrastructure.

And again, what have been the direct results?

The PPP/C Administration succeeded with its strategy for concessional financing and also was successful in its campaign to obtain debt relief.

Pres. C Jagan joined with progressive forces worldwide in internationalising the case for debt relief and thus obtained important relief.

The PPP/C maintained its commitment to financing the social sector with high levels of absolute and relative spending there. Expenditure has been maintained al levels of close to 20% of total expenditure.

The creation and the rehabilitation of the economic infrastructure has also attracted considerable financing.

The support of the donor community in both these areas of PPP/C strategising has been reassuringly consistent.

The desired objectives have been development itself, economic growth, improved social indicators and thus improved well being.

That was reflected in the mood of the people, their confidence in the future and a veritable explosion in their creative expressions.

Guyana's HDI reflected the appropriateness of the strategy adopted and implemented by the PPP/C Administration.

The question to ask now is "Was there any specific relationship between those democratic gains and the developmental objectives that were achieved"?

The real question was whether that specific assortment of democratic gains introduced by the PPP/C resulted in that specific amount and quality of development that took place.

There is no straight forward answer.

The PPP/Civic accepted that democracy was a necessary ingredient for national development and indeed that one led to the other.

The convergence between the results of democratic renewal and developmental achievements was thus not seen as accidental.

Democratic renewal as instituted by the PPP/C was about process.

It offered predictability and in the context of its sustained implementation allowed for reasonable expectations to be set by Guyanese and met by Guyanese.

The commitment to engage in development was thus enhanced in such an environment.

The implementation of the PPP/C strategy was premised on donor support with its concessional funding and conditionalities.

In closing allow me to examine the impact that further democratic interventions can contribute to development in Guyana.

Unless and until we expand the content of democracy to include the necessary commitment to inform, to provide information and make information readily available to the public, our society would be fettered and we would be delayed in achieving the knowledge base society that current theories and practice of national development demand.

And it's not only that information which national governments create, possess or control, but it is also information in the widest possible meaning of the word, information to provide for informed consent by Guyanese, information to provide for the achievement of their fullest creative abilities.

Information is the new currency. And it is the bottom line in development.

And unless and until we recognise and behave in ways consistent with respect for rights and responsibilities, development can be delayed and even frustrated.

The abuse of democratic rights institutions must be studied and arrested.

Internal and external threats have now surfaced and made telling impacts on the twin processes of democratic renewal and national development.

Democratic gains have been threatened.

Developmental strategies have been maligned and their implementation obstructed.

And of course the economy has suffered and so has Guyana and Guyanese.