Is this the PPP/C’s concept of democracy?

May 05, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
A Demerara Waves report dated 04/24/11 captioned ‘Amerindians to get Low Carbon-generated cash in July’, highlighted some serious realities regarding governance and politics in Guyana. In the report, the President of Guyana, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, in my opinion, made some worrying comments.
The first comment I wish to refer to is the response Mr. Jagdeo gave to the reporters who questioned whether this whole exercise of granting the Norwegian funds to the Amerindians, now, was to whip up election support in those communities.
Mr. Jagdeo seemed unapologetic when he reacted; “If governments are in office and if by doing things for all their people —Amerindians or people who live on the coast enhances their chances of winning elections — isn’t that what supposed to be…”
He continued, “The idea is service but service, hopefully, will bring support.” The President refused to use the opportunity to remind and educate the recipients under what conditions the funds became available to the government, but resorted to engage in his usual ‘backyard politics’.
Mr. Jagdeo should point out to us where he happened to get this notion that when government provides public goods and services to its people it then becomes all about those people throwing up their arms in support of that government.
Is this the PPP/C’s concept of democracy? Clearly, the president is either, unaware of the functions of a government or he was simply restating the PPP/C’s deceitful, ‘vote-baiting electioneering policy’. It is this kind of thinking by governments which leads to the creation of policies that ensure that discrimination and victimisation become institutionalised.
The institutionalisation of these evils stems from a thinking by these governments that their act of providing government services, their bona fide duty to the people, must be reciprocated with support at the ballot, from those people.They reason that if that kind of support is not forthcoming, then those people ought to be punished, in so far as that government remains in power.
The lack of support for the government by these people is then perceived, by the government, as refusal by them to conform to the government’s expectation. Accordingly, if the government were re-elected, one of its main priorities would be to apply pressure to those people to coerce them to, wantonly, surrender support for it throughout its term.
This pressure is brought to bear through various means, crouched in government policies and programs and may include; but not limited to, starving a particular locality of government grants, refusing to grant increases in salary for a certain section of government workers, structuring specific government benefit programs in a manner that ensures that those they are targeting do not fall into that ‘priority’ category, etc.
In Guyana one such example might be the structuring of a contract or bidding process so that those that are targeted are unlikely to win a contract.
The government may also utilise both overt and covert means of unleashing its venom upon an unsuspecting people.
I, therefore, do not believe that Mr. Jagdeo was not contemplating sending a direct message to our Amerindian brothers and sisters, and Guyanese generally, when he made his comments to the press. I believe his comments were deliberate.
If this was not his intention, how else can one explain Mr. Jagdeo’s, contrasting comments to Buxtonians, when he addressed them at the ‘Tipperary Hall Turning of the Sod Ceremony’ in December last year?
At that ceremony President Jagdeo is reported to have said that; his and his government’s involvement in the rebuilding of the Hall was not an act of benevolence, but rather it was part of his duty to meet the needs of the people as the elected President of Guyana – a sudden realisation.
What a stark contrast to the ‘Norway Funds’ comment. Is this a case of misplaced rhetoric or is it just that the President and the government believe that different people must be told different things, at different times, even though the same purpose is intended?
My conclusion is that Jagdeo and the PPP/C have decided that different methods must be employed for different people, one more subtle, but equally dangerous, the other more overt and intimidating.
To discern the thought process of this regime one does not require the brain of a rocket scientist, since the intentions of this government are as clear as day. Any layman like you and me can elucidate their plot without much mental effort, all we need to do is to pay attention to their actions and words, and you will smell the rat.
So, Mr. President, the people are aware that the functions of government are not to attempt to deceive the public into believing that government’s responsibility to provide services is an act of benevolence intended for taxpayers to reciprocate with their votes.
You and your government’s responsibility is to, at least, provide satisfactory and adequate goods and services to the people, who by the way are paying taxes.
The Norway Fund was granted to the Guyana Government with specific purposes and objectives. Ensuring that the Amerindian communities receive monies to embark on projects to cushion the effects of the Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) project, or to assist them in restructuring their lives due to the impact of the project happens to be one of those specifics. These are the people whose lives will be directly impacted upon, initially, by the changes that will be brought on by the project.
Mr. President, don’t attempt to insult our intelligence by intimating that the release of this money is a situation of you and the PPP/C doing something for the Amerindian people. Further, the release of G$1.6M to G$1.2M to Amerindian villages for projects just questions the kind of project that you expect these people to embark upon.
What kind of projects can these people embark upon, with that kind of money, and what will be the real benefit to them, as a community?
I noted Mr. Jagdeo commented that this release is for the initial phase. Isn’t this phase supposed to be the most critical phase as it is considered the period of setting the foundation? Will this money be adequate?
The second statement by the president that I find very unfortunate is the comment about providing laptops at a centre for the Amerindian communities. The President is reported to have said this to the Toshaos; “We can’t give every home a computer but you will have one big facility with about 20 computers in each village…”
The big question is why not every home? And what about the One Laptop Per Family (OLPF) project, is the Amerindian family not considered to be part of that Guyanese family considered under this project? If so, why not? Why treat our people differently? Or is it that the OLPF is nothing but a farce, again, to be used as a tool to garner votes.
The Toshaos and other leaders in the Amerindian community should ask the President whether the OLPF project is designed to exclude the Amerindian family or whether, in the government’s scheme of things, the Amerindian Family is not a Guyanese Family. Why are we taking our people for granted?
And for the benefit of the president and the government, let me remind you that the government has a responsibility to provide public goods and services for the wellbeing of the community as a whole. It is supposed to be better structured to provide these than private businesses.
We make these services possible with our tax contribution, nothing is free. The Norway Funds, on the other hand, is money given to Guyana in exchange for us to embark on projects geared towards the reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation, a United Nations-identified program. The Guyana government has adopted its Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) in the name of advancing the specific U.N. agenda.
Finally, the livelihood of the Amerindian Guyanese who reside mostly in the hinterland is expected to be impacted drastically by the LCDS project. As a consequence, it is expected that they will be given the necessary resources to adequately adjust to these changes. The Norway fund was therefore granted with this reality in mind.
It was less than sincere or truthful to make the situation appear as though the money to be given to the Amerindians was in some way a token gesture of the PPP/C Administration, this foolishness is unacceptable.
Lurlene Nestor

---

---