Do you believe we should have an absolutely free market policy and leave the investment and growth of the economy soly to the private sector. Should we stop the sterilisation of the guyana dollar? Should we stop the fiscal austerity and move to pay better wages?

Should the government utilise some of the money to invest in the economy and to create jobs? It seems that the private sector is not up to it. Foreign investment is not automatic there is a lot of competition world wide.

The banks are usurous should we continue to have the banks and subsequently social savings soley in the hanfs of the private sector?

These may be pertinent questions for our society to commence discussion on.

The press of third world countries if there is any patriotic blood in it should move to facilitate this discussion.

It would be funny if it was not such a tragedy that those who control the state media have not moved to facilitate such discussions such education.

The CEO of NCN is the person in charge of RED house should utilise the station to educate people with regards Jagans legacy but from the programmes it can be seen that he does not recognise the need.

Initially I am hoping readers would be more ready to question what they have accepted to be true as they move to examine ideas posited that may be opposed that may be different From those that they have accepted.

Your point about ideological dissonance is well taken. If you decide as a policy that the private sector is going to be the main engine of growth then all actions have to be directed and decisions taken towards this end. But this did not happen. Is it the ideology of the party? I think not. The party has not too much influence.

The president always had the position of private sector coupled with taxation was the way long before the PPP took power. There is no ideological conflict here. It has to do with knowledge and understanding and appreciation of proposals. The president has surounded himself with yes-men, friends to whom he listens, or whom listens to him and says good idea.
Olall is a prime example. We would recall that Olall was pushing the idea of hydro power and other alternative forms of energy for so long. We all know that his termination was wronglul and unfair.

And Here Bharrat listened to the party that attempted to represent Olall and dismissed any overtures from them. They do not have a voice.

The problem lies with personality, pettiness and vindictiveness. It lies with an inability to comprehend the policies of the IMF and the repercussions. It comes with the fact that no one was brought in, from the opposition, the trade unions and the private sector to participate in the negotiations with the IMF or to even discuss the issues.

There was no national debate on the IMF. Unfortunately none of the political parties and the trade unions saw it fit to open such discussions in the national arena.

The legacy I was talking about is the trisectoral economy Jagan and the PPP advocated.

Too many however have suucumbed to the idea that the state is inefficient and should not invest capital and get into business. That the private sector is the only way to prosperity. and that is why I choose to commence an ideological debate to appreciate this issue and why I suggest we separate it from party politics.

I suggest, you in letter form propose the views you have stated here with regards investment etc and facilitate a discussion on the issue.

MY COMMENTS:

The PPP on paper has an ideology. The paper ideology is not merely left of center but far left. However, since 1992 the PPP, in my opinion, has opportunistically pursued certain policies that conflict with the far left ideology. That is, it refused to think for itself and allowed the IMF and WB to fully articulate policy in Guyana. That was because it pursued a strategy of aid-financed development that has not worked in the third world. The PPP, in my reading, felt the IMF/WB is the lesser evil than foreign investors (I see neither as evil). In addition, the PPP wanted to be independent of the opposition and it used aid and grant financing to circumvent the need for reforms and suggestions emanating from the opposition.

Moreover, the PPP government policy opportunism and misdirection has led to a serious mess today. There was never a long-term strategy and part of it came from the ideological cogitative dissonance of being far left on the one hand and policy opportunism on the other. Take for instance the re-emergence of 1980s-type blackouts. Only a long-term energy strategy could solve the blackout problem as diesel generators and the distribution network will deteriorate.

Here is a government, which is known for its mendicancy, has chosen to refuse British help to reform and professionalize the police force. In other words, the mendicant government – as illustrated by the CARIOCOM building, the grant financing element for the cricket stadium, the convention centre and the PRSP – has suddenly invoked nationalism and pride to turn down the most crucial piece of aid Guyana could ever need.

Do you think we should discuss these issues? Should the private sector be the only engine of growth? Does this lead to gross inequalities and structural contradictions? can these contradictions be resolved and how?

What has your brain generated with regards these issues?

Many support the PPP government because they still feel it’s ideologically left of center. Many in their haste to criticize the PPP government call it communist thus reinforcing this belief. The supporter of the PPP has to be educated to understand the drift away from the legacy.

I am not opposed to the capitalist class as persons. But within a structure it’s good to understand the results of having it as the only class that should invest and appropriate profits. Whether it results in deep rooted contradictions.

We have been taught to develop a strong abhorrence to the state’s involvement in investments and productive enterprise thinking that it cannot be efficient, that only the private sector can be efficient. But it might be interesting to discuss how efficiency is understood. Is it simply a question of the amount of profits?

These are issues that should be discussed not in a way that suggests we know and we know what we know is right but with a mind more open to ideas. Should be discussed in a more interpersonal manner.

We, in the process of discussion need to appreciate the role of the capitalist owned and controlled news paper, media houses, publishing houses and the film industry. This result in it having great contol and influence over our mind and we should be cognissant of this as we move to defend and or support the ideas we have in our minds.

Personal attacks should be excluded in this process.

You can start by saying I disagree with you. You are wrong or we can commence a realistic discussion to understand the other perspective. Many of us that think somewhat different from you have been where you were but not many have moved over to where we are.

What methodology can and should be used to make the analysis. The way we debate is important. Are you right because you feel you are right. Then go ahead. But appreciate your views and understand its origin and possibly the interest it serves.

Just bear in mind that there are type of economic systems, forms of government and method of rule. Do not think for instance that capitalism is synonymous with democracy an idea we have been bombarded with. In the same way we have been bombarded with the ides that the capitalist press is synonymous with the free press.

The big issue is how we develop an open mind. Do we need to come to real grips, real understanding of alternative perspective in order for us to have real intellectual choices?

As a child I vividly remember, the popular slang of the day “hold on bhai things gan change”…we used to mock each other during play. And yes my friend, things always change to a point where original positions, understandings and beliefs must be adjusted for growth and relevance. Bisessar, my quarrel here is not with any specific ideology per se but rather, it is the ideologue(person) who is the one to be feared especially when they command life and death authority over others. The ideologue retards growth by controlling the speed of change.

For example, the PPP was birthed primarily as a Communist/Socialist organization some decades ago when British Guiana, still in its infancy was struggling for a political identity for governance as an independent country. Today the PPP is still using the same outdated Communist/Socialist manifesto to govern a 21st century polity. Guyana is slowly dying of old age from the antiquated ideology of paramountcy and the gov’t need to be the chief cook and bottle washer all of the time.

And one more thing Bisessar, the PPP allowing a small privilege few party supporters to fly free of Gov’t restraints and prosper beyond imagination is not free market ideology but friend market instead. A Free market economy would be open to all investors. Therefore, if you are no longer flying free like the others my friend then I’m afraid that you’ve lost favor with the in crowd. The PPP haven’t changed their position on anything, they are just not into you and Moses anymore….

I like your letter. You have raised some important questions. But the question remains – how are the workers going to find the wealth and means to own the media houses and own properties? And specifically what did the so-called working class party do to uplift the welfare of the masses of workers since 1992? My contention is the workers alone cannot do it. You also need a vibrant capitalist class with a social purpose.