Volunteered comments, information, and references from a surprisingly large number of colleagues and analysts (most of whom I only know by reputation) in the international and regional community, as well as local inputs have added to my insight of the processes at work and intellectual development. I would like to publicly thank these individuals.

I had indicated in the very first article in this current series on March 9, “some of the ideas and analyses I will be introducing over the next several weeks are at an early, (perhaps even premature) stage of formation and development of my on-going professional and academic work on development.” As one analyst noted, the Sunday Editor should be commended, as rarely, if ever, in the developing world, is a public admission of a creative endeavour of this sort in the written mode allowed to survive as journalism.

To ensure that the summary presentation is kept to a reasonable length, I shall proceed over the next couple of weeks mainly by way of identifying the important ‘theses’ in my presentation, with very brief reference to the material and places where they have been substantiated in the previous articles. Before considering these however, I need to address two other issues: one is to recapitulate briefly for readers the context and focus of this current series. And, the other is to identify the major building blocks that I had identified in the process. This is necessary, not only because we Guyanese have short memories, but also because it can never be the case that all readers of the series would have read all the contributions.

Context of the series

A good indicator of the context in which the articles started is the Stabroek News editorial of March 4, 2003. Having been widely circulated, the salience of that editorial is substantially validated by the lack of any subsequent significant public or otherwise noticeable categorical rejection of its viewpoint, through either the medium of the Stabroek News itself (letter columns) or any other media outlets. This occurrence prevents the ‘rewriting of history’ and therefore lends support to reasoned analysis. Among the crucial statements in the editorial are: (1) its reference to paramilitaries in the crime wave, (2) references to the presence of foreign mercenaries in the crime wave, and (3) the graphic references to the “four-headed international ‘Hydra’ of backtracking, narco-trafficking, money- laundering and gun- running,” in the crisis and crime wave facing Guyana. This editorial followed the March 1 killing of Yohance Douglas, the maiming of Ronson Grey, and the assault/wounding of other persons in the same vehicle. My intervention was designed to show that the editorial references were not to “unconnected or unrelated occurrences.” These were linked together in a common network in which state-sponsored violence played a major part. For the state to be playing such roles, it reflects a pathological degeneration or deformation of the state. I described that as the progressive conversion of the state into a vehicle for aiding criminal enterprise.

The state is of course, by no means the only player in society. I made it very clear also that my focus on state violence did not mean that this was considered to be the only major form of violence in society. Apart from my lack of expertise or knowledge of certain areas of violence, it was argued that state violence has been to date the deadliest form of violence in terms of taking human life. Further, since the state is usually empowered to exercise dominant control of violence in all ‘modern societies,’ a higher standard is called for in the state’s exercise of violence against members of society. This is already enshrined in international law and practice. Indeed it is generally true, as I pointed out, that “democratic law guards against all forms of violence and rigidly subjects the guardians of the law to the rule of law.”

Building blocks
What have been the main building blocks of the series? First, it was argued that the mutation of the state into a vehicle for criminal enterprise has a direct lineage to (1) the domestic environment (2) the form of the state that preceded it, and (3) globalisation or the international environment. Secondly, in relation to the domestic environment the key elements identified have been the roles of corruption in the impoverishment of the economy and the backward capitalist environment, which best characterizes the logic driving the economy of Guyana. Thirdly, this portrayal necessitated an extended discussion of corruption, the shadow economy, and those elements of backward capitalism that are relevant to my argument. Fourthly, arising from all these, a particular system of government emerged in which a key feature is the role of the international financial institutions (IFIs). Fifthly, the impact of globalisation was analysed and the thesis of the ‘failed state’ assessed as an alternative explanation of the situation in Guyana.

Finally, the precursor to the present state was characterized as an authoritarian state and its nature and methods of rule briefly highlighted.

Next week I shall continue to pull together the main sub-theses arising from these explorations in order to present a summary picture of the main ideas.