Latest update July 1st, 2024 12:59 AM
Dec 25, 2021 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
Kaieteur News – The Private Sector Commission is partial: it is partial to its own interests, and should rightly be so. No one expects that ACDA should not be partial towards African’s interests or that the Indian Arrival Committee should not favour policies which promote the interests of Indians.
There are some trade unions which leave little doubt about their partisanship. But the private sector has no permanent friends, only permanent interests.
During the reign of the PPP in 1961, sections of the private sector were concerned about the possibility of Jagan turning Guyana into a communist state. This was the narrative which Britain and the United States were fomenting.
The then local private sector saw communism as the greatest threat to their properties. They were afraid that the PPP would seize their properties and turn Guyana into another Cuba, even though at the time, Castro had not transformed Cuba into a communist state.
As such, sectors of the local private sector contrived to topple Jagan by siding with western imperialism and its local lackeys including Forbes Burnham who was on the CIA’s payroll.
That local private sector ran from the frying pan into the fire. By 1976, Burnham had effectively marginalised and miniaturised the private sector, leaving only a small band of family-owned businesses which opportunistically ingratiated itself with him and his undemocratic regime.
The business class needed him since he controlled the import licences, access to foreign exchange and could unleash the taxman on them. It was in the interest of this business class to be indulgent towards Burnham and his paramount party.
When Burnham began to run the economy into the ground and was forced to raise domestic capital, he launched National Defence Bonds. Private sector firms felt obligated to support this drive, more out of fear of attracting Burnham’s disfavour.
As the economic crisis deepened into the 1980’s, a new breed of entrepreneurs arose. And they too saw their interests tied to the government of the day.
By the time Desmond Hoyte commenced the liberalisation of the economy, the private sector was firmly in his corner. Yes, they were firmly in Hoyte’s corner. Some of them even formed a grouping called the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP).
Logically, the then private sector supported Hoyte’s decision concerning the removal of trade restrictions, the liberalisation of the foreign exchange markets and the privatisation of state enterprises. It was in the private sector’s interest to support these things and they did so because these measures set the stage for a return to a free market economy.
The PPP/C came into office in 1992 and the private sector stuck with its traditional posture of supporting the government of the day and the country’s market reforms including the establishment of private banks. They pressed and obtain concessions for retooling and recapitalising of businesses. It was in their interest to do so. The private sector was not being partisan. It was simply protecting their interests as they have always done.
The APNU+ AFC came into office in 2015 and adopted an indifferent relationship with the local private sector. Associating the private sector relationship with the former PPP/C governments as being pro-PPP/C, the Coalition did not actively cultivate strong relations with the private sector.
But, the private sector did not abandon efforts to seek benefits under the APNU+AFC. It was able to wrest limited tax reforms from the Coalition government and even went as far as praising the government for adhering to some of its recommendations.
However, the private sector was equally concerned about the burdensome taxes which were imposed by the Coalition, including on electricity and water and on other items. As such, their relationship with the APNU+ AFC was not as close as that with the PPP/C. This intensified the perception within the Coalition that the Private Sector Commission was politically aligned.
Then towards the end of its first-term, the Coalition began to show signs of authoritarianism. This was bound to cause concern within the private sector, especially since many private sector firms began to complain about a massive slowdown in business.
It was logical that when the actions of the Coalition threatened constitutional rule and democracy that the Private Sector Commission would be opposed to such moves. Constitutional safeguards and democracy are necessary to protect private property and the free market economy. It therefore was in the Private Sector Commission’s interest to stand up against breaches of the Constitution and the rigging of elections.
The PNC/R is therefore correct when it asserts that the PSC is biased. It is biased in favour of business interests, as it ought to be.
Despite the recent criticism it has faced from the new PNC/ R leader, the Private Sector Commission has reason to be genuflecting before the Opposition party.
Nothing has changed in the PNC/R except its leadership. The ‘jumbie-voting’ narrative is still alive and kicking in the PNC/R, and so long as that mindset exists, nothing good can come out of the party’s elections.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)
Let’s fight that snake Exxon!!!
Jul 01, 2024
Kaieteur Sports – ExxonMobil Boys’ and Girls’ Football Tournament heats up today with semifinals action The race for championship glory, which began this past weekend, intensifies tomorrow...Kaieteur News – With the rapid pace at which stem cell research is being conducted and the encouraging results which... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – The seven-nation Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), which... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]