Dear Editor,
The initiative of the AFC to allocate two parliamentary seats to the diaspora is certainly novel and maybe to some, a bit controversial. As highlighted by Mr Ramjattan, the diaspora loosely numbers some 900,000 whose members are scattered in many countries, with large and significant concentrations in North America and the UK. Most significantly, a large cross-section of this community is first generation with a strong bond to the home country. A sizable contingent of the community is highly educated, independent and well placed in industry and government in their adopted homeland. One should remember they are the products of decades of Guyana’s brain drain.
As Guyana struggles to move forward, it should harness the skills and talents at its disposal from any reliable source, local or foreign. The use of foreign skills is nothing new to Guyana; over the years we have seen many experts working here in various capacities. Many in Guyana’s diaspora have expressed a willingness to get involved in the development of the country by lending their skills and talents to help overcome the many challenges.
However, as Mr Ramjattan pointed out, though many are willing to assist, it is not reasonable to expect they will give up their lucrative jobs, businesses and security to help on issues with a half-life. In addition, many in the diaspora want to ensure what they do contribute is coordinated, meaningful and sustainable and that their contributions make a real and measurable difference to the nation as a whole.
To accomplish this, one must ensure accountability and an institutionalized means to leverage this largely untapped resource. The diaspora would prefer to know the government sanctions their offer of skills and that there will be follow-through on their efforts. They will also feel comfortable contributing if they know there are institutional points of reference to follow up on the progress of initiatives undertaken. The fact must not be lost that these individuals do have their regular jobs and family priorities in their adopted homeland. The proposal by the leader of the AFC clearly intends to assign ownership to the government for ensuring the meaningful and fruitful partnership with the diaspora.
Another potentially huge benefit would be to tap into the second string of Guyanese. The current stock of direct Guyanese emigrants is now becoming detached from their respective commitments to jobs and family in their adopted homes in that they are attaining retirement status, and their children are becoming independent. However, this population is also ageing and will require closer ties to adequate medical care.
To that end, their re-commitment to their homeland could serve as the bridge to connect their foreign-born offspring with the homeland of their parents. This model is most evident and successful in such progressive countries as India and Israel, which have suffered similar intellectual migration but were successful in keeping downstream generations engaged. Guyana is uniquely poised to draw on the expertise of the second string of educated and skilled Guyanese as South America emerges from the doldrums of the time when their parents became successful in their respective careers.
Taking the latter into consideration and coupled with the financial accomplishments of first generation migrants, Guyana is in the enviable position of potentially being able to attract investment in the form of government developmental bonds, as stated in the AFC action plan.
In conclusion, there is a very compelling rationale for the allocation of two parliamentary seats to the diaspora (NRGs).
Yours faithfully,
Doodnarine Seenarine
