A lack of vision
Editorial
Stabroek News
July 18, 2004
A think tank comprising the top achievers in the UK - the leaders in business, the unions, arts, science, voluntary organisations and opinion formers (serving politicians were excluded) - met recently under the auspices of the Sunday Times and the pollster YouGov to examine how to improve the country. Surprisingly, a remarkable measure of consensus emerged in a variety of areas. Among other things, the members conveyed a "disquieting weariness" about both the government and the opposition, from whom no "bold or innovative ideas," it was said, were emanating. If one had not known that some of the remarks pertained to the UK situation, it could easily have been thought that they related to Guyana. Reporting on the discussions, the Sunday Times said that the panellists agreed that good politicians do not necessarily make good managers, and that businessmen "watch in despair from the sidelines." One chairman of a major British company was quoted as saying: "They [the politicians] have lost their way; they lack the basic skills to effectively manage." Another referred to the government's "fundamental lack of understanding" of what is needed to manage large organisations. Many of the members, said the paper, had requested anonymity, but not all, and it was Sir Terence Conran's name which was attached to the comment, "Neither the Conservatives nor Labour are trusted..."
A kind of perverse solace, perhaps, can be taken in the fact that if this is what the non-political leadership thinks about the government and opposition of one of the oldest parliamentary democracies in the world, then it could hardly be expected that our local government and opposition could get a higher rating. And yet, if one does not demand a higher standard of one's politicians, they will never raise the levels of their performance. It has to be said that neither of our two major parties have projected any larger vision to inspire the electorate. The purpose of politics in a democratic context is twofold: firstly the achieving of power and secondly, effective government once power is achieved, and planning for it if it is not. One of our problems is that so much of our political energy is consumed by the politics of power, that our politicians have expended little effort on "bold and innovative ideas" to galvanise the populous. When they do put forward new thinking, it is invariably in the sphere of power politics, such as 'inclusive governance,' 'power sharing,' or whatever. The weariness of the Guyanese electorate, as opposed to the British one, is related not just to issues of governance, but also to how the political game has been played here. There is, of course, a problem with the quality of governance as well. All new governments start off with a measure of idealism, and such was the case with the present incumbents in our case too. However, the PPP/C administration, like its PNC predecessor before it, has been subject over the space of twelve years to the corroding influence of power. It has long since lost the motivation to inspire anyone, and lurches from crisis to crisis haranguing its critics and eschewing meaningful debate in the true sense of that term, on substantive issues. Coherent policies of a long-term nature, have been absent in several areas, and its management skills in general have been demonstrated to be woefully inadequate in a general sense. Paradoxically, it is its misfortune that there are few controls on what it does, not even the ultimate control - national elections - on account of the ethnic character of Guyanese politics. If in the end it does not have to answer seriously to anyone within Guyana, then it will behave accordingly. Despite the fact that this administration, like all sitting governments which have been in office for an extended period, has become increasingly remote from the people who are governed, the opposition has demonstrated itself seemingly incapable of raising its eyes above the horizon of the scramble for power, and offering the inhabitants of this country an alternative vision. The rallying cry of the PNCR might have been good governance, but there is no evidence that they have any clearer idea in their minds of what that might involve than does the government itself. The protests and the riotous behaviour have debilitated this nation and undermined people's trust in the capacity of their politicians to effect genuine change.
Where, for example, are their detailed alternative policies for the different sectors? Where is the intellectual challenge to the government in the forum of the National Assembly and the various statutory committees?
While it is undoubtedly true that the government has treated Parliament as little more than a rubber stamp, the main opposition party has made no sustained attempt to effect change in the way in which the ruling party does business there. They have to keep hammering away within the rules, so we get genuine debate and not merely these sleep-inducing set speeches read in a monotone by government members; so that opposition motions do eventually get on the order paper, however many attempts have to be made in order to achieve that feat; so that the committees actually begin to have an input into the national debate; and so that we could get some inkling of what the PNCR would actually do were they in office - other than share power, that is. The hit-and-run of press briefings, is no substitute for operating within the framework of Parliament, and thereby strengthening the institution and along with it our fragile democracy. In other words, being in opposition requires as much real work as being in government.
It might be remarked in passing, that the only members who attempt to treat Parliament as it should be treated, are those from the small parties, namely, GAP/WPA and ROAR. The size of their representation, however, militates against them being able to make much of an impact on how the system functions.
There is something else which wearies thinking Guyanese which does not apply (by and large) in the UK situation, and that is the vulgarity of the exchanges between the two main parties. The sometimes offensive and vituperative nature of their criticisms are inimical to genuine discussion, and raise the temperature unnecessarily. If they cannot talk to one another, and worse yet, listen to one another, then how will they ever be able to present us with the vision of a future which would offer us some hope.