A bowl full of hyperbole

May 27, 2021 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Kaieteur News – I was unable to register for the Diaspora conference which was hosted by the Government of Guyana. The members of the Diaspora were so enthusiastic about this event that the 1,000 Zoom registrations were quickly filled.
However, I was able to follow the main presentations, which were streamed live.
I am sorry that I did bother to do so. The event turned out to be a flop and a grand disappointment, and none more so because of the failure of the President – the feature speaker – to appreciate the role he was expected to play, a role which should have been reflected in the appropriateness of the remarks which he delivered via Zoom.
As the organisers explained, this was the major new thrust by the Irfaan Ali Administration. At the least therefore, one expected the President to explain his government’s philosophy and approach towards the Diaspora, the same way as the leaders in India have done in articulating a clear policy towards its Diaspora.
The President failed to so, and instead he went on a long-winded excursion about what his government will be doing within the economy without trying to situate that in relation to the Guyanese Diaspora, except to make the vacuous statement that the Diaspora’s support is key to Guyana’s development.
The President is unfortunately developing a penchant for hyperbole. And there was a bowl full during his address to the Diaspora Engagement.
Last Saturday, the Diaspora may have felt flattered that the Government of Guyana decided to engage with them. But they are still lost as to why and how this process will unfold.
The Engagement was well-received. But no one can justifiably say that they are any clearer about the government’s plans than they were before the engagement.
The Government has a penchant also for one-off engagements. There have been for example no sustained or structured engagements with civil society. And the same is likely to befall the member of the Diaspora.
And this is unfortunate especially since there are numerous models which the government can adopt. India represents, for example, an interesting case study of what to do and what not to do in forging relations with one’s Diaspora.
As so many scholars have pointed out, India was once indifferent to its Diaspora. In fact, Nehru adopted the position that Indians who lived overseas should concern themselves with adapting more to their new homelands. In 1957 the position was stated as follows in India’s National Assembly, “If they adopt the nationality of that country, we have no concern with them. Sentimental concern there is, but politically they cease to be Indian nationals.”
But economic conditions in India later led to a change in policy. At a time of shortages of foreign exchange, India found the remittances supplied by its Diaspora a useful thing to have. And this has led on to its present openness towards its Diaspora.
The present Prime Minister has adopted a different stance towards his country’s Diaspora. In an increasingly globalised world, Modi is conscious of the loss of the effects of the brain drain in India and is interested in ensuring that the brain drain can be tapped for brain gain. He is also mindful of the influence which his Diaspora can impose on local politics and he want to condition any such influence.
Guyana can learn much from that experience if it wants to. The Diaspora is broadly considered as emigrants and their descendants that reside outside of the country. However, India now speaks more about persons of Indian origin as against purely a Diaspora. This allows it to incorporate within those persons who have Indian ancestry but whose parents or even grandparents were never born or lived in India.
There continues to be high levels of migration from Guyana. But also a second generation of persons, born overseas to Guyanese parents has emerged. They are not likely to have the same ties to Guyana as their parents did. A clear policy strategy to incorporate these foreign citizens into our Diaspora was notably absent from the President’s presentation.
Sufficient ground work was not undertaken prior to this recent engagement. There were no surveys done as to the concerns and interest of the Diaspora. And so what we had was another glorified talk-shop. When it comes to the Guyanese Diaspora, it appears as if the PPP/C is calling the old the new.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News