APNU’s National Flood Control Plan

Jan 22, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine is a quiet but formidable force within A Partnership for National Unity (APNU). He is one of the more sensible and level-headed leaders within APNU, and most likely he would have had a great deal to do with the decision of APNU to propose a national social contract.
The government has not embraced the social contract as proposed by APNU and Dr. Roopnaraine, more than most, would know that the reasons for government’s hesitancy are due to the PPP’s own experience, especially those of recent vintage, in dealing with the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR).
The PPP has serious reservations about the sincerity of APNU. The PPP has been burnt and betrayed much too often when dealing with the PNCR. As such, the PPP cannot be expected to blindly throw its arms around any proposal emanating from APNU and the AFC. The level of mistrust between the sides is elevated, and this accounts for the failure of the government to seriously engage the opposition in Budget talks.
APNU is now taking another route in promoting its idea of a social contract.  But if APNU is serious about its social contract being achieved, it has to be cautious. It has to change its approach. Instead of a confrontational stance, it will have to do things differently, and refrain from intimidating the government. What is more important is not what is done, but how things are done.
The signals are promising that we may yet see a change in attitude by APNU. What are these signals?
Firstly, APNU announced that it wants there to be less confrontation over the Budget. Secondly, it has indicated that it is no longer interested that it will not be accepting the proposal by the Minister of Finance for discussions on the Budget. In short, it does not wish to be drawn into another dogfight over who was responsible for a collapse of the Budget consultation process.
Thirdly, APNU, with Dr. Roopnaraine as its shadow Minister for Natural Resources and the Environment, is moving to draft – the operative word being “draft”- a National Flood Control Plan. These are signs that APNU is not keen on confrontation and wants to try a new approach.
A few weeks ago, APNU bemoaned the constant flooding throughout the country. It called for a National Flood Control Plan. APNU is now moving forward with drafting this plan which it says it will propose to the government.
APNU has made it clear that the plan will not be allowed to be placed on hold. But while indicating that APNU will not depend on government for the implementation of the plan, it did concede that some parts of the plan will have to be funded by government, with other parts by international agencies.
This idea of international agencies being involved in funding aspects of the plan should not be construed as APNU running a parallel government. Those agencies that have to be involved are not going to operate like USAID and the US Embassy in Guyana and contemptuously decide to go ahead and implement a plan without the approval of the sitting government.
International agencies outside of USAID do not operate that way. They require the support of the administration for any project they fund. As such, APNU will have to acquire the support of government, because even if there are aspects of the plan which can be implemented without international support, APNU cannot generate the resources to implement these aspects. By now that should be clear to APNU, after the experience with the rebuilding of the school at Wismar which was torched during the protests two years ago.
It would be politically suicidal for APNU to decide to go ahead and implement its National Flood Control Plan and to have aspects of that plan funded by international agencies without the support of the government. Such an approach is inconsistent with the idea of a social contract, as proposed by APNU itself, and would lead to the collapse of the plan, because without funding, nothing can be achieved.
Government funding is critical to any National Flood Control Plan. Funding for such a plan will require significant borrowing internationally. For example, the dredging of the creeks, rivers and outfalls will require resources that are presently beyond the means of the administration.
APNU’s National Flood Control Plan is an attempt to have a microcosm of its larger social contract. If APNU is successful in drafting a feasible and workable National Flood Control Plan for the country, this will demonstrate the possibilities for a wider social contract.
APNU’s proposal for a National Flood Control Plan is therefore critical to any future acceptance of its proposal for a social contract. The manner in which APNU pursues this plan will determine its acceptance and implementation.
If APNU tries to ram this plan down the throat of the PPP, it will encounter resistance. The plan will in such a situation be rejected and this will kill any possibility of APNU realizing its grander power-sharing vision, encapsulated and repackaged as a social contract.

---

---