Dear Editor,
Perhaps there is precious little to actually celebrate, so let me say that as we observe the arrival of the day Guyana attained political independence from Britain forty-four years ago, it is apposite at this juncture that we ask ourselves whether we are really better off as a result of being politically independent of Britain. I even read some time ago where some Guyanese have openly regretted our attaining independence because of what ethnic-driven divisive and corrupt politics have done to our country, while others derisively called for Guyana to be returned to colony status under Britain.
Without attempting to even wax nostalgic about the exciting events that characterized the euphoria of that historic era, let me cut to the chase and say given the promised expectations versus the pathetic eventualities, I believe while some are better off individually, as a nation we are not. Both our politicians and our people have failed each other and those generations that came after May 26, 1966.
Don’t get me wrong, because I do believe that, in principle, attaining political independence should be the equivalent of coming of age and a sense of responsibility and purpose, however, from a practical perspective it has not delivered for Guyanese. And rather than us discussing the merits and benefits of political independence, we have found ourselves debating whether Guyana has achieved failed state status given our present circumstances versus our potential capacity since 1966. How ironic that while we are politically independent we have grown economically dependent on former colonizers and their enabling political associates!
In fact, Editor, for some time now, I have been asking myself whether any Third World historian, but preferably one with an acute interest and insight into pre and post-independence issues would do an analysis of how former colonized countries have fared since attaining political independence. And for those that succeeded or failed, give some basic reasons.
In Guyana, for example, is there a shared consensus that Guyana’s failure to launch economically is tied to a combination of politically inspired ethnic interests and the ill-advised pursuit of an anti-West left-wing agenda by both the PPP and the PNC that basically shut out major Western investors during global economic boom times? And did the party paramountcy concept of both the PPP and PNC contribute to varying degrees of corruption in their respective governments?
From my layman’s perspective, if there is one area where Guyana’s post-independence failure is pronouncedly borne out, it is in the haemorrhaging of probably more than half a million Guyanese to other countries. What is also rather instructive or revealing is that the majority of overseas-based Guyanese have actually chosen to live in countries – America, Britain and Canada readily come to mind – our politicians once railed against as being representative of the evil colonial empires that demeaned the colonized peoples.
How can locals, Guyanese included, running to live in these countries that were viewed as homes to the bad colonizers not be seen as a major international indictment against local politicians, activists and governments that cheered and championed political independence messages and movements that ousted the colonialists? In Guyana, I remember with pride the night the British Union Jack was lowered and the Golden Arrowhead was hoisted. I remember the national songs and the thousands of new national flags all over the place. In time, there were powerful political rants against the ‘white man’ and the Western economic system that were alien to the aspirations of Guyanese, so we set out to create a new path for political, social and economic development. Cheddi Jagan had his ‘New Guyana Man’ and Forbes Burnham had ‘The Small Man is the Real Man,’ but it has since been ‘every man for himself.’
Forty-four years later, Guyana appears not to even be going around in circles, but has definitely regressed in almost every area of endeavour, despite boasts by government spinners to the contrary. And instead of Guyanese acquiring knowledge and skills for Guyana’s development, they are taking their knowledge and skills to develop already developed countries and even other developing countries. From the ABC countries, with hundreds of thousands of Guyanese, to even little Barbados, which can fit like an island in our Essequibo River, with more than 30,000 Guyanese and counting, the numbers are mind-numbing. How can a country develop without its most precious resource: people? Economists, of all people, ought to know better!
But even more mind-numbing is the fact that the present government, despite touting its now back-burner Low Carbon Development Strategy, seems to have no concrete plan to attract overseas-based Guyanese to return in droves with their knowledge and skills for Guyana’s accelerated development. One also has to wonder if foreign donors do not pony up the anticipated US$580M annually towards LCDS whether the government has a Plan B for the economy, or if it will continue to rely on foreign loans and grants, foreign remittances, money laundering and an excessive tax system from a mostly consumer-based, underperforming and underachieving economy.
Maybe this forty-fourth anniversary observance will be used by the PPP and its government to cover up a lot of what has gone wrong under the PPP, but especially since Dr Cheddi Jagan died in 1997, but if Guyanese at home really want to live the Guyanese dream, as opposed to the nightmare many are living, they owe it to themselves to make change happen. They obviously didn’t make it happen in the past, so at least the next opportunity to make it happen will come in 2011. At this juncture, it is no longer about comparing the PPP era to the PNC era; it is about comparing where Guyana was in 1966 to where Guyana is today and projecting where Guyana should be five years from now given her potential.
Will Guyanese finally become independent of past ethnic voting patterns that supported parties with ideologies alien to the urgent need for accelerated socioeconomic development? Time will tell!
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
