Dear Editor,
Emile Mervin (‘After sixteen years the government still has not revealed a long-term economic plan’ SN, 29.5.09) requested that I comment on: “whether it was not practical and possible for the government to do a double-barrelled approach to dealing with our struggling economy by tackling both debt relief and a major economic recovery and development plan that allowed for the constructive exploitation of our natural resources.” I take it that underlying Mr Mervin’s concern about planning is a belief that having such a plan is of the utmost importance and that there are favourable conditions for its successful implementation. In our context, I question both of these assumptions. Firstly, let me deal with the notion that a written national plan is of vital importance to Guyana’s development.
It is always good to have an explicit national plan that at least can help to integrate and focus national efforts. However, we should not forget that Burnham had more than one written “development plan” while Desmond Hoyte had none. Yet, Hoyte’s tenure and its legacy represents one of the most economically buoyant periods in recent Guyanese history. Of course, Hoyte had a plan similar to what presently exists; one devised in collaboration with the international financial institutions (IFIs) and of which they have remained the gatekeepers. On the question of planning itself, it is also useful to note that the first efforts at a ‘National Deve-lopment Strategy’ (NDS) began with Cheddi Jagan and that it was usual to attempt to locate the plans of the various ministries within NDS and IFIs’ “Poverty Reduction Strategy.” The reason I question the assumption that favourable conditions exist for the successful implementation of a national plan is somewhat more complicated.
Guyana is an ethnically heterogeneous society caught in the spiral of competitive politics. As a group, such countries were far poorer in 1990 than ethnically homogeneous countries and achieved a much lower growth rate of real per capita income in 1965-90. Ethnically heterogeneous countries were under-represented among the fastest growing countries and over-represented among the countries that were unable to raise per capita income between 1965 and 1990 (Ronald R Snodgrass (1995) Successful Economic Development in a Multi-Ethnic Society: The Malaysian Case).
The problems facing these countries have long been recognised. In 1861, John Stuart Mill, the eminent British philosopher of political liberty, argued that: “free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities” (Of Nationality as connected with Representative Government). And, believe it or not, this was, more or less, the conventional wisdom right into the 1970s. As late as 1982, G. Bingham Powell, “… found a positive relationship between ethnic fractionalization and government instability, with greater levels of instability correlated with higher levels of ethnic fractionalization.” In its 1998 report, Freedom House, the private United States foundation, stated that “countries without a predominant ethnic majority are less successful in establishing open and democratic societies than ethnically homogeneous countries,” and that “monoethnic countries are twice as likely to be ranked ‘free’ as are multiethnic ones.”
As if this were not enough, Guyana is in a category considered “bicommunal states” (states in which there are two principal groups, comprising about three-quarters of the population and exhibiting significant social separation) and social relationships within these are considered even more problematical (See David E Schmitt (1991) Problems of Accommodation in Bicommunal Societies). Alvin Rabushka and Kenneth Shepsle argued that these states are as they are because their political leaders seek to gain support by “outbidding” each other on ethnic issues. Ethnic identities are important in multiethnic societies and in a competitive “winner-take-all” situation, “ethnic entrepreneurs” use them for voter mobilisation, thus giving rise to alienation and violence. ((1972) Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability).
Guyana fits well within the above framework. Once the British had signalled their intention to leave, the struggle for power between the major ethnic groups began. Writing in 1965, Ernst Halperin (Racism and Communism in British Guiana) stated that: “Most of the Guianese with whom we spoke during our stay in the country insisted that tension between the Negroes and the East Indians was a very new phenomenon, and that up to the early 1950’s the two races had lived together in harmony.” The Report of the British Guiana Constitutional Commission 1950-51 (Waddington Report) observed that: “race is a patent difference and is a powerful slogan ready to the hand of unscrupulous men who can use it as a stepping stone to political power.” And, a few years later, the Report of the British Guiana Constitutional Commission 1954 (Robertson Report) was extremely gloomy: “We do not altogether share the confidence of the Waddington Commission that a comprehensive loyalty to British Guiana can be stimulated among peoples of such diverse origins.”
Halperin claimed that apolitical Guianese tended to blame politicians for the racial tension. “Spokesmen of the Negro ‘People’s National Congress’ (PNC) consistently put the blame on the rival PPP, while PPP spokesmen blamed the PNC.” However, he concluded that: “The root causes of racial tension undoubtedly lie far deeper; they are not to be found in the… the unscrupulous imaginations of local politicians, or in a real or in imagined partiality on the part of the British rulers.” The burden of the evidence indicates that the cause of the problem of these societies rests not, as we are often told, in the machinations of unscrupulous leaders but in the very nature of the specific type of multiethnic communities. So, as Mills suggested, are these societies more or less doomed?
Apparently not, as Schmitt provided some solace: “Despite the apparent difficulties faced by societies dominated by two main ethnic groups, it should not be assumed that they are inevitably ungovernable… To the extent that Malaysia can be considered the practical equivalent of a bicommunal society, the post-independence history of that country also suggests the possibility of developing coalitions in Third-World settings.” Generally speaking, nowadays the environment is not as pessimistic and there is now “an emerging scholarly orthodoxy concerning the importance of political engineering and institutional design.” Thus, Benjamin Reilly ((2001) Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management) argued that “divisive zero-sum outcomes are not an inevitable characteristic of politics in divided societies, but often a reaction to the institutional ‘rules of the game’ under which the democratic competition of the electoral process takes place. Changes to these institutional rules – for example, by the introduction of electoral systems which facilitate cross-communal communication, bargaining and interdependence between rival politicians and the groups they represent – can have a major impact on the promotion of moderate politics, and thus on prospects for democracy, in divided societies.”
The dilemma is that in the process of democratic participation, the objective reality of an ethnically divided society such as ours gives rise to forces that are essentially counter-democratic. In this context, it is extremely optimistic to believe that it is mainly the malevolence of individuals, the PPP or the PNC or the lack of a national economic plan and strategy that has kept us in poverty.
I know of no politician who wants our roads, schools, hospitals, education, crime prevention, general administration and all else to be underfunded and in disrepair. If our leaders, and indeed many of us, are to be blamed, it is for either not truly comprehending the context in which we find ourselves or having done so, not having the political will to make the necessary changes.
Yours faithfully,
Henry B Jeffrey
Minister Jeffrey’s needs to answer why he was removed as the minister of education by his PPP bosses.
What really bothers me about Mr. Jeffrey’s writings is that he seems to find every reason in the book why Guyana’s economy is in the state it is. The gentleman is looking everywhere for the answers but ignores degree of the competence of the stewards of Guyana’s economy. His letter also gives me an insight into what an economic planning meeting in the government is like. If his utterances reflect the thoughts of the government, which he was/is a part of then Guyana will be continuing along the path to economic armageddon.
Mr. Jeffrey, people will always be divided through race, tribes, religion, music, height, color or whatever. Don’t matter what, people will always find a way to align themselves with certain groups. It is the nature of man. So now that we establish that Guyana’s situation is not unique let’s put your argument aside and look for sensible reasons why Guyana economy is continues to underperform.
Again, I will submit to you that Guyana’s economic problem is more structural than anything else. Put the fundamentals in to build a capitalist society along with incentives to attract direct value added investments and that society will flourish. Carl Greenidge, Kenneth King and Desmond Hoyte understood that. The lending institutions understand that. The government doesn’t understand that.
Ashni Singh and Bharrat Jagdeo are not the most impressive men to deal with.Now go figure
Ex Minister please. He was removed because he was
was one of the MOST honest Ministers in the PPP Admin.
I don’t agree with Dr. Jeffrey’s main thrust above. There have been societies where various ethinic groups exist, or the understandable racial tensions are properly managed, in a stable environemnt. The People’s Republic of China for example.
National development plans are necssary but must have a political philisophy (“for the good of the people”, simple as it may sound) There was no philsophy behind Hoyte’s alleged plan : it was an elite’s reaction to the demands of international financial institutions (for condionalities ) before the dispensing of further aid monies just to keep Guyana runnning at that particular conjuncture.
Dr.Jeffrey’s point that the solution ultimately lies with the people is a good one but his premise, that they as mutli ethincs are themselves at fault, is off base. He would better contributed to the debate had he looked better at the very real and documened role of organised elements who broke up the original PPP. This is the theorrectical mother lode which he so surprisingly dimisses.
Faria aka Reddy, it is for the same reason….development with a political philosophy (of communism, thiefism, nepothism, marginalization and inept and incompent leadership) which is why you have so many of the supporters of the PPP ran out and continue to run out of Guyana under the PPP. It would be patriotic and grand old guyanese nationalism for you to lead the wandering flock of the PPP back home to the promised land of Cheddi jagan.
Racial tensions are properly managed in China?
Reddy which planet did you just drop in from or rather which decade? 1950 or 60? or 22?
Jeffrey. What a load…. Just answer to the issue posed to you. Every single government world-wide, except for dictators, puppets and fascists have long term development plans in place! No need to apologise for this government.
la dee dah…Jeffrey has a lot to answer for before he can pontificate on what has gone wrong in guyana.
JEffrey needs to come clean and admit that the PPP has failed to move Guyana forward economically, socially or politically.
They have embraced all of Burhames communist policies for Guyana Communism 2.0.
Its over Jeffrey time for your PPP to pack up and ride out of town with their heads in a bag.
Reddy is arguing the PPP should have never broken up as this is the central reason we are suffereing from racial and ethnic problems….I guess Guyana would have then become a one party state…which it is today with an ethnic focus…solution…put the PPP and PNC back together…this is regressive thinking and communist thinking
Mr. Phillips, I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with a well liked and influential British mine workers union leader who once quipped that if Mary and Joseph had been provided with a (subsidised, state provided ) Council house, before they went to the manger in Jerusalem, it would have saved the world a whole lot of problems (with religion). The same with Guyana’s racial insecurities: had the PPP remained together it would have save the country a whole lot of problems. One party state ? Well, that’s one way of looking at it…Peace.
Reddy the PPP time is coming!!
Tick tocky tick tocky!
Reddy In Barbados, your analysis is preposterous. How can you cite China, one of the mose repressive societies in the world. China keeps its society together by force. Ask the Dhalai Lama & ethnic Muslims.
Dr. Jeffrey is on point with his original thesis the the local politicians don’t know where they are and lack the will to find out and change the situation. As for a development plan, as long as some dinosaurs still cling to the old Cold War ideaologies and language, the country can never develop a coherent plan. The distance between leftists, rightists, Communists, Socialists, & Capitalists is just too great.
What Guyana needs more a than a plan is agreement on how to build wealth in the country. This is not a new or even difficult question to answer. We just have to get away from the past and embrace what works.
Dr. jeffery is again being ingenious.”The dilemma is that in the process of democratic participation, the objective reality of an ethnically divided society such as ours gives rise to forces that are essentially counter-democratic. In this context, it is extremely optimistic to believe that it is mainly the malevolence of individuals, the PPP or the PNC or the lack of a national economic plan and strategy that has kept us in poverty.”
Is he making excuses for his participation in the two collossal institutional failures in Guyana and the wider caribbean, for no political party has failed its people like the PNC and the PPP.
Come on Henry, you got to be joking!! It is time you guys stop taking all guyanese for “Mickey Mouse”.
HENRY, like you are preparing your thesis for another Doctorate,…. Guyanese at home and abroad, all consider themselves “social scientists”, and are full of theories,… and these are presented, either intentionaly or through ignorance, as their escapism, from reality;;.. many of the concepts presented. seek to demonstrate scholarship, cum politcal correctness…,, these fulminations, will all prove empty and useless, since they often forsake pragmatism, for the glamour of sholastic theory;.. in guy.. we all know the problems we have.. … but the solutions?.. ??.. not until we start calling a spade a spade..?… not until like any sucessfull business, the employees, practice loyalty to their managers, and “board of directors”… not until, we stop encouraging each other to harm his neighbour, not until, the “dog in a “manger”.. “crabs in a barrel’… “sour grapes” mentality”. nurtured by a section of our society,.. is discarded, will we make significant progress… in the meantime.. our slower than acceptible developement will continue, but we are getting there….. of course, the voices of protest will get louder, and more hysterical, as their numbers shrink, but the truth will inevitably win out…… my sermon for the day’.. “my peace be with you,.. Go and serve the lord in peace” … love thy neighbour as thyself….,
….sarri but ah busy ,, an ah kyan fine de time fuh reed wah ministah Jeff rite haysuh ,,,, ah gon leff de reedin fuh e fren dat ‘e referenced ,,,,, ah talking bowt mutt ! eh heh is he ah talking bowt ,, damn ! what a pair ,,,, Mutt an Jeff! ////
Jeffrey said: “I know of no politician who wants our roads, schools, hospitals, education, crime prevention, general administration and all else to be underfunded and in disrepair.”
But there are many politicians since the 1950s who have openly or discreetly facilitated the underfunding and disrepair of our roads, schools, hospitals, education, crime prevention, general administration and all else by their incomptenence, skulduggery, greed and strict adherence to failed policies.
Jeffrey stated: “If our leaders, and indeed many of us, are to be blamed, it is for either not truly comprehending the context in which we find ourselves or having done so, not having the political will to make the necessary changes.”
The majority of our leaders KNOW of the very context within which we exist. They exploit it for gain. For Jeffrey to claim that the inevitability of the context and composition is insurmountable is nonsense.