ABSURDITY ON BOTH SIDES

Jul 03, 2017 Editorial

It has been and continues to be standard practice in Guyana that when the people most need their leaders to demonstrate unity in the face of the adversity, as in the case of the recent floods, they are being let down.
As thousands of citizens were still reeling from the aftermath of intense rains and the subsequent floods, the opposition decided that that was the right moment to criticize the government for not doing more for the people. There are times when criticisms are needed and welcome, but it should not be in times of disaster.
It is beyond pathetic that the opposition would compare who treats those affected best when a natural disaster occurs. Within a day of the flooding, the opposition was praising itself for services rendered to the victims affected by disasters. It is sickening that a former president could stoop so low to self-praise for performing a national duty and it is a pity that he does not yet comprehend that he is no longer the President of the country.
This is happening at a time when the people, many of whom were among the hardest hit with the floods, need their political leaders to represent their interests. Instead of deeming the floods a matter of urgency and assisting the government to provide help, the Opposition Leader chose to stay on the sidelines and criticize.
Many have rightly condemned the Opposition Leader for playing politics with the lives of the people in the face of disaster. Since losing power two years ago, this has always been the role of the opposition on almost every issue, be it a natural disaster or not.
It seems that even a disaster has not been sufficiently important for the Opposition to rise above petty politics and an ugly tit-for-tat, instead of helping to find ways to assist the farmers and livestock owners. The actions of the opposition leader would in some countries incur the wrath of the people, especially those who are affected by the floods. In choosing to criticize the government’s response, the opposition has surrendered the opportunity to seriously represent the interests of the people.
On the other hand, the government must take some of the blame in this case for being reactive. Given the longstanding nature of many of the problems that routinely lead to havoc after a torrential downpour and above average precipitation, the government should really have been better prepared. Had it taken its failures in the past seriously, then it should have acted with greater alacrity and not waited for several days.
Successive governments have not invested enough resources into our drainage systems despite promises to do so. Neither have they vigorously enforced the laws against the dumping of garbage, heavy appliances or plastic food containers into canals and trenches. They have not effectively overseen the policing of land development, by commercial developers and squatters, to ensure adequate drainage systems are in place.
Instead of dealing with these issues to demonstrate its effectiveness in handling disasters, the government has essentially been reactive. Judging from the evidence, it seems that the national requirement for disaster preparation and effective operation of the system was not met.
Even the greater autonomy and responsibility given to local government bodies seems to have not had the intended effect.
But the bottom line is that while the government and the opposition are entitled to their respective opinions of what is important or not, unfortunately their choices continue to sink the country. Will they ever take their responsibility seriously?
It is absurd for these theatrics and avoidable blunders to be taking place as the nation faces critical challenges.