Hostile political environment

Jun 21, 2018 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The Private Sector Commission (PSC) has failed since May 2015 to have any meaningful engagement with the APNU+AFC administration. The PSC has been generally ignored by the government. The government has frowned upon their concerns.
The government has long viewed the business community as being pro-PPP. As such, it is not surprising that the government will likely ignore the latest request by the PSC for meeting to discuss what the PSC calls the “hostile” political environment.
The source of this hostility, in the eyes of the PSC, is the ongoing back and forth tussle between the government and the PPPC. The PSC, however, put its foot in its mouth, when one of its top officials let the cat out of the bag by mentioning the disconcerting development of seeing former Ministers in chains.
He was referring to the charges leveled against former Minister of Finance Ashni Singh and the former Head of NICIL, Winston Brassington. Coming from a PSC bigwig, this statement is only going to reinforce the view within the government that the PSC is concerned with defending the PPPC.
The acrimonious political environment, however, goes beyond the dubious charges laid against Singh and Brassington. The political environment has become toxic over a number of other issues, including the unilateral appointment of a Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission and the process which preceded that appointment.
The PPPC, in response to the President’s unilateralism, has vowed a policy of non-cooperation, but which excludes important national and constitutional matters. The PPPC launched a broadside against the President last November when he attended parliament. The Leader of the Opposition has also not consented to the President’s nominees for top judicial appointments, thereby creating another deadlock.
At the moment, there is little or no political cooperation or consensus taking place. The one-seat government is behaving very arrogantly. In turn, the opposition is peeved at the irregular sittings of the National Assembly, saying that it holds up the business of the nation – a business, of course, with which it is not cooperating.
The hostile political environment is bound to make a bad business climate worse. The majority of private sector businesses are taking a serious hit. Business is slow. It is only the Chinese stores which are doing well, and as most people know, the bulk of those profits will go overseas.
Right now, it is the Cubans who are responsible for rescuing the commercial sector. Through their purchases of clothing alone, the Cuban traders are investing more into the Guyanese economy than the sugar industry. If you do the math of the total number of Cubans coming to Guyana each week, and you multiply this by a reasonable average amount which each one of them spends, you will realize the extent to which the commercial sector is being kept afloat by Cuban purchases.
This growth is not going to be sustained indefinitely. Caribbean countries, including Suriname, will realize the value of Cuban purchases in the Guyanese economy, and will attempt to woo the throng of Cuban shoppers to their countries. Guyana will then lose out and the economy will further dip.
The political climate is also likely to impact on investment. Companies in the extractive sectors usually are not concerned about domestic political hostility. But a hostile political climate, especially in the context of possible election rigging in 2020, is likely to discourage all investors. It is obvious that the Chinese are withholding investments, waiting to see whether a government more favourable to their interests will emerge after 2020.
The PSC therefore has an interest to reduce political tensions. But the government remains suspicious of the PSC, seeing it as a PPPC outfit. The government is not worried about the decline in the commercial sector. The government’s economic strategy is called WOO – Wait on Oil!
Negotiation is the way forward, but PSC has no influence to force the government to the negotiating table. Its leadership is much too weak. Unless the PSC can command the attention of the government in the same way as the North Koreans did with the USA, there is little likelihood of the government responding favourably to the PSC’s request for a meeting.
North Korea broke its diplomatic isolation with the West by forcing the Americans to negotiate. And it did this from a position of strength. North Korea had a trump card (no pun intended). It had nuclear capabilities. Had it not had this bargaining chip, it would not have been able to force the recent summit with its leader and President Donald Trump.
The PSC therefore has to stop its mendicant approach towards the government. It must ask itself what are its strengths, and how can it demonstrate to the government that it has to be taken seriously. Unless the PSC can develop a leadership capable to doing this, it will remain supplicant to the government.

---

---