Between the rock and the hard place
Cassandra's Corner
When cabinets convene to discuss matters pertaining to the economic and social development of our nation, the members are genuinely trying to do what is best. Of this I am convinced. There is no one in any cabinet that sets out to be counter-productive to national development. It is also true that profound deliberations and analyses could be constrained by all sorts of factors: newness, lack of technical knowledge, deficient managerial experience, limited exposure and education, etc. But we have seen cabinets, comprising people with great track records, make decisions that are inimical to the interests of the nation, immediately or in the long term. In the end though, I think it would be realistic and logical to assume that lucid, experienced minds would make less mistakes than those that are cluttered, visionless and weighed down by extraneous elements that militate against progress. Very often governments are caught between a rock and a hard place. I can think of two such scenarios that plague decision makers. One concerns agriculture and the other investment. Any government would like to promote production in its agricultural sector. After all, food self-sufficiency and food security are important tiles in nation building. But successive governments have been placed on the horns of a dilemma by trying to give farmers a fair price for their produce, while keeping the price down for the (especially urban) consumer. This particular problematic is not easily solvable, and I have seen several Cabinets wrestle with this issue. The second area in which governments get caught between the proverbial Scylla and Charybdis has to do with wooing investors, while getting a fair deal for the citizens. Perhaps this is the most difficult of all, because it calls for playing a game in which we don't have the best cards. The guys on the other side know how weak our position is, how we need their presence (for both economic and political reasons), how they can go elsewhere and quickly negotiate a similar arrangement. The 'Beal Deal' is a classic example. All we have going for us is the site. Our bureaucracy is stultifying, the education level of our workers and even middle management staff is not the best, our communications and road systems leave a lot to be desired. It cannot be very easy to negotiate a great deal when there are so many negativities on our side. Both our officials and the guys sitting across the table know fully well that there is no stampede of investors into Guyana and that they have alternative sites to choose from. If we don't come good, they'll just move on. Then we lose everything. In the Beal Deal, it seems clear that our negotiators have opted to place emphasis on indirect spin-offs from the enterprise and hope that others will follow Beal's investment decision. I must say that I liked the statement of the Prime Minister Sam Hinds at the end of last week's press briefing. He ended by saying that ultimately it was the elected government that had to make a judgement call. And they did. Some other thoughts crossed my mind as I read the contributions of various players in the discussion. My experience is that with some few exceptions there are two types of foreigners that work in Guyana. On the one hand, there are those who are condescending and paternalistic towards Guyanese, as if they were children in need of a scolding. The other group is overtly and demonstrably arrogant in their dealings with Guyanese, whether the latter be workers or managers or members of the political directorate. In neither case are Guyanese treated with respect and definitely not as equals. Why is this so? Well, for one thing, we suck up, we kiss ass to get a favour - even if the favour is an invitation to a cocktail party. We get together with the foreigners and make jokes about the leading politicians and leaders of our business section. We join in the ridicule of our workers and farmers; we relate anecdotes depicting how dumb they are. We stroke our chins and nod our heads in pensive agreement at their assertions and opinions on everything irrespective of how shallow these foreign pearls of wisdom are. They, on the other hand, must be very disgusted by all this oleaginous yessir, no sir, amen sir. In fact, the obsequiousness must give them all the more reason to be condescending or bombastic. Another thought along the same lines. It really is quite amazing to observe how many of our senior officers/ negotiators sell themselves for a bowl of pottage. Some of these foreign agencies must have a manual on how to deal with Guyanese technicians and administrators, especially those in the civil service. All you have to do is give them a trip abroad and promise a few more. After that there is no opposition from the Guyanese side of the negotiating table. I have known one professional to make a 180 degree swing in position after a free trip. I am sorry for him now that he is out of a real job. No more cocktail parties, no more free trips, no more young officers to boss around. Then there is the way the foreign entity can line up their top guns against the natives across the negotiating table. One organization had on its staff three PhD's, five comrades with Masters degrees and another five university graduates with first degrees. And that was only their staff in Guyana. They could at any time call up more heavyweights from their head office at a moment's notice. Our underexposed team was led by a pusillanimous peon (as in pee on) with a first degree and an inferiority complex. We consistently got eaten raw. In fact, the annual reports of this foreign agency documented very clearly that they were in charge - a classic case of the tail wagging the dog - and the dog liking it so. * By the way, as an aside, having seen the Beal Deal media meeting with the PM and his team, I have got to say that some of our media practitioners are just plain rude. Kit Nascimento should hold a course on how to ask questions; how to be tenacious and focused without being impertinent. Some of the younger comrades were interrupting while an answer was being given to a question, others were laughing. It was as if a kindergarden had an excursion to the press conference. Enthusiasm is one thing (and we surely don't want to suppress that), but there must be some degree of politeness and decorum. I know one thing, if a reporter is rude to me I would just not entertain his/her question. It just dawned on me: could the disrespect by the media be a realistic expression of how they feel vis-a-vis a group that itself shows no dynamism and cannot command respect? No, it can't be. None of them could touch Edgar Heyligar's toe nail. It's just that these kids need immediate guidance and training to compensate, in some cases, for their lack of broughtupse. Over to you Kit - help them. * I've just got to share with you this Ahnee joke. Ahnee is the editor of the largest newspaper in Mauritius and was a main man at the recent media conference. Mr Ahnee relates that a TV station owner insisted on putting a tikka on his forehead. The tattoo artist explained that only women wear this dot. To which the wannabe Ted Turner retorted that he had met the Indian Prime Minister who told him that he was an interesting man but that he had (now pointing to his forehead) nothing there. Look, I is sell dem like I is buy dem. Jus'so. No profit. And I'll be giving you more Ahneeisms in the coming weeks.
|