Ramotar clueless on a way forward, AFC challenges him to a public debate

Jul 03, 2011 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

The Alliance For Change is at best amused at the comments of the PPP’s picked Presidential Candidate Mr. Donald Ramotar as reported in another section of the media to the effect that “Guyana’s economic status has risen over the years.”
Surely, what Mr. Ramotar meant to say was that the financial status of the PPP’s top brass as well as their lackeys and cronies has risen over the years.
Ramotar was quoted as saying: “At the economic level, we have moved Guyana from being a basket case in 1992 to being the most dynamic economy in the region today.” How dare Ramotar seek to flagrantly insult the intelligence of the Guyanese people?
The Guyanese economy, albeit its recent pattern of tepid growth, is characterized by chronic underperformance and underdevelopment. In 2009, it was deduced in an analysis conducted by economist Tarron Khemraj that in the period 1961 to 1966, Guyana’s GDP grew at an average of 3.44%. In the Burnham years from 1967 to 1985, GDP grew at an annual average of 0.51%. In the Hoyte adjustment years, 1986 to 1992 – GDP grew at an average of 0.31%. In the Jagan years – which enjoyed substantial positive economic catalyst from the Hoyte reforms – of 1993 to 1997, GDP grew at 7.71%. Since 1998, GDP grew at an annual average of 0.86%.
It has to be constantly emphasized that it is tangible economic growth buttressed by macro stability that is the foundation of development.
The AFC has pointed out that the failure to generate a meaningful pattern of growth is a product of the absence of a strategic industrial policy. In fact, the volatility that has characterized Guyana’s economic performance is usually associated with economies that depend on primary resource extraction and low agricultural productivity. The unstable nature of GDP growth, therefore, cannot be seen as representing macro-economic stability.
Macro-economic stability can only be touted when Guyana starts to make products that are higher up the global hierarchy; in particular goods with high income elasticity i.e., the demand for the country’s products rise concomitantly as world income increases. Our energy products, value added agriculture and tourism clearly fit this profile.
Further, it is not altogether certain whether the Guyanese people are fully apprised of the international magnanimity that this PPP administration has benefited from and squandered in the development thrust. In 1996, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank presented the Initiative for Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). The HIPC Initiative was set up to solve debt problems of the highly indebted poor countries, which had a total debt of US$200 billion. Moreover, the HIPC Initiative tried to make funds available for social sector programmes, especially in the areas of health and education.
Some time ago, the IMF had published a paper entitled Guyana: Why has growth Stopped? An Empirical Study of the Stagnation of Economic Growth, wherein three reasons for poor economic performance were cited: a considerable decline in net foreign and domestic investment, a decline in the labour force and a less favorable political and institutional environment. From 2005 onwards, economists pointed out that money was not our problem since we had a liquidity problem that the Government solved by sterilizing some G$50 billion through the issuance of T-Bills, for which it doled out to the local banks, billions in interest.
The resulting high interest rates the banks opted to demand from local investors became a major problem because those rates were absolutely prohibitive to any start-up venture. The PPP passionately refused to heed such counsel, principally because it emanated from outside of its hallowed chambers of ineptitude.
On the political front, Ramotar was reported as saying “Guyana is now one of the most democratic nations in the world. All the fundamental freedoms and human rights are protected.” Clearly those rights do not include: 1.The right to be protected from slander by the President; 2. The right of the Guyanese people to have fore knowledge of a President’s retirement benefits which ultimately they will have to fund; 3. The right of Lindeners to be emancipated from the monopoly of the government-controlled NCN which Chief Justice Ian Chang had ruled was a substantial breach; 4. The right of bauxite workers to be treated with dignity in their own country and be protected from the excesses of foreign capital; 5. The right of sugar workers and public servants to be paid a liveable wage and not be treated with manifest condescension and 6. The right of hinterland residents to be meaningfully integrated into the mainstream of development – on this score, Amerindian residents of Orealla/ Siparuta recently told a visiting AFC team that it was easier to have meaningful interaction with the Surinamese Hinterland Minister than with the Guyanese counterpart.
What the vested interests of the PPP have chosen to ignore is that free and fair elections is not the end of democracy, but its very inception. Madeline Albright had referred to States with such regimes as post–euphoric democracies where after the euphoria of free elections, there would be a failure to create democratic institutions and a refusal to cultivate democratic norms. One bright Guyanese had referred to such a situation as democracy suffering the fate of infant mortality.
Guyana can be described as a post–euphoric democracy which breaches Aristotle’s conception of democracy which posited to the effect: “For if liberty and equality,…are chiefly to be found in a democracy, it must be so by every department of government being open alike to all…”
This enunciated deformity of our economy and political culture has caused the depletion of perhaps our most valuable resource: our human capital. Guyana is considered to be one of the highest exporters in percentage of its skilled workforce. It should be underscored here that human capital is also important for building suitable institutions that are critical for long term growth.
Further, Ramotar stated “… therefore, we have delivered on our promise to the Guyanese people.” The AFC here challenges Ramotar to a public debate on the PPP’s record in office as well as on the policies and programmes of the respective parties for Guyana’s development.
The AFC believes that this suspect record of the PPP on the economic and political fronts ought to be seriously challenged in the interest of national development and the wellbeing of the Guyanese people.

---

---