In our Tuesday edition [ please note: link provided by LOSP web site ] we reported that the Private Sector Commission (PSC), whose membership comprises business organizations and corporate bodies, had not been invited by President Bharrat Jagdeo to two meetings to discuss plans for a second business summit, and to set up a committee to prepare for that summit. Not only did the President confine his consultations to selected entities, namely, the Guyana Manufacturers' Association (GMA) and the various Chambers of Commerce, but his actions were rendered more inexplicable by the fact that it was none other than the umbrella PSC which had been instrumental in setting up the very first business summit with the President in 1999.
PSC Chairman Peter de Groot told this newspaper following an emergency meeting on the issue attended by five corporate members and five affiliate organizations, that the conclusion of those present had been that the commission was being "deliberately bypassed." That is the least that can be said about it. How can the Government seriously expect to foster a meaningful partnership with the private sector for the purpose of development if it is going to play favourites, and of all things, exclude the single umbrella organization to which most of the other representative business organizations belong? It is true that some of the Chambers of Commerce are not members of the PSC, but the GMA certainly is.
That the President has stirred up resentment in the business community is clear from comments made by Head of the Tourism and Hospitality Association of Guyana (THAG), Mr Gerry Gouveia, whose organization represents 75 companies and who referred to feeling slighted at not being invited to the meeting. He was reported as describing the exclusion as a divide and rule game being played by the Office of the President. "I am very concerned that a fragmented group is going to meetings with the President," he said, "when it is necessary for genuine consultative public/private sector engagement for the development of Guyana." He also adverted to the fact that the PSC had had its seat on the Central Planning and Housing Authority board withdrawn, and that THAG's two seats on the Tourism Authority Board had been reduced to one.
The question has to be asked as to why is it the President, and by extension the Government, would risk the inevitable criticism which would attend such ungenerous behaviour, when they have been at such pains in the past to assure the nation that they are committed to working with the private sector in the interest of developing the nation. Whatever the reason, the temptation will be to home in on the role of Dr Peter de Groot in the Social Partners grouping, which attempted, unsuccessfully, to break the impasse in the Jagdeo/Hoyte dialogue in 2002.
Last year Dr de Groot, the chairman of the Social Partners [ please note: link provided by LOSP web site ] , said that there had been "a perception in one political camp [ie the PPP/C] that the Social Partners Group was biased towards the other camp and [this] therefore resulted in the initiative being viewed with increasing suspicion as the process developed." The Government, he said, "attempted to block the initiative whenever it could," because of its belief that it could develop into a third political force.
The PPP did not let this pass, Mr Donald Ramotar responding that Dr de Groot's remarks had been poorly timed and had misrepresented the position of his party. The General Secretary said that the PPP/C had welcomed the initiative and had given it support, even although it had felt that the group should have had broader representation to encompass the farmers' organizations and religious bodies in particular.
The rights and wrongs of the Social Partners' role, and whether or not the Government feared the group might become a third political force, are not the issues here. All the above is intended to do is illustrate that the Government was clearly less than comfortable with the Social Partners, and less than happy about Dr de Groot's comments. As such, therefore, in the absence of any other rational explanation for the President's selective approach to consultations with the private sector, as stated above, the public will turn its attention to this issue, and come to the conclusion that the Office of the President is taking the opportunity to register its disapproval of the PSC and its Chairman.
Now it may be, as Mr Gouveia suggested, that the bypassing of the PSC is all a misunderstanding, or it may be that it is an oversight or a mistake. If so, then it is something which should be rectified very quickly. The Government can ill afford to have the public perception of a head of state who is not prepared to operate in an even-handed way, and even less the perception of one who will harbour grudges.