Dear Editor,
Perhaps the most frequently asked question in Guyana these days is, ‘When you think is elections?’ This, however, speaks to the awareness and interest of the population currently in our country and its affairs and development.
So, I would like to give my mouth liberty, or rather my pen liberty; I think that general and regional elections will be in the latter part of April 2015. Now that is out of the way, my prediction is that we will have a change. At this point, I am not certain whether the change will come from within or from without, but I am almost 100% certain that we will have change. Guyana will never be the same again and can never be the same after this election.
There is a popular view that everything we do as human beings, is done either out of the emotion of love or fear. This election, one is getting the impression that more Guyanese will vote out of the emotion of love – love for country, love for each other, love for a better future for their children and grandchildren, rather than out of fear – fear of each other, or fear of the East, West, North or South.
So having stated that, change is a done deal. After elections what? As of May, 2015, assuming that elections are held in April, what is the development path that Guyana will take? What are the strategies from political parties contesting the elections to be? What is still not forthcoming in a clear and decisive way is what is the AFC, APNU and the PPP/C’s strategic plan/programme for Guyana? What is their strategy for: Creating greater employment? Reducing crime, improving security and creating a more peaceful society? Attracting more foreign investment? Developing a more skilled and trained population? Building a more cohesive society? Developing a more functional and trusted judiciary? Improving respect for the rule of law? Youth development? –among others.
Whichever government takes office after the next elections, some serious adjustments would have to be made if the new administration is serious about moving Guyana forward in a competitive and sustainable way, locally, regionally and globally.
The disposition of the leaders and people of Guyana to their development has to be elevated to another level for sustainability. I will mention five categories in which I have placed our leaders, people and institutions/organizations. These are, initiators, coordinators, implementers, strategists/thinkers and finishers.
For the most part our leaders – government and opposition – people and institutions have been largely initiators or in the initiating stage. Some examples of this are our approach to projects and the matters brought before parliament.
On the coordination front, once again, our leaders, people and institutions/organizations are so divided, that in too many cases, coordination has become a major challenge. It is difficult to have people working together if they are not talking to each other, or at least respect each other. An example of this is the Mayor and City Council (M&CC).
On the point of implementation, too much of the focus of the leaders and institutions is on social trust and relationships, instead of on competence, experience, expertise and professionalism. In order for the scale of implementation to improve there must be a shift in this approach.
In the area of strategists/thinkers, there has been some more thinking than strategy or strategic approach by our leaders, people and institutions. Nevertheless, there seems to be more a culture of thinking in a crafty and cunning way rather than the emergence of clever thinking or smart thinking.
As to whether our leaders, people or institutions are finishers or completers, this is only to a very low degree. Some examples are projects. Too many projects are initiated and not completed. One of the reasons for this is that the focus is more on initiating projects, rather than finishing. In order to have a good finish our leaders, institutions and people have to get the conceptualization, the initial stages right.
Finally, the new administration has to be more solution-oriented and develop a more problem-solving culture. Let’s examine the Budget in the Tenth Parliament. The opposition had and still has an issue with the government’s approach to developing the Budget and has suggested some adjustments to the approach. The government held onto to its position that, it is the executive arm of government which is the policy-making component and continued along a certain line. The AFC submitted a no-confidence motion to the Clerk of the National Assembly against the government, The President then prorogued Parliament to avoid the no-confidence motion being passed. Where is the solution-oriented approach in this? Could the solution have been had if the government or the opposition had compromised or taken some other course of action? I can go on with other examples, for instance the frequency of either the government or the opposition taking matters to the courts. Could there be other ways of finding solutions?
Finally, the judiciary as the third arm of government has to emerge as a more solution-oriented institution. Hence, it has to evolve above partisan interest and rebuild trust and confidence in its ability to contribute towards and nurture a culture that is problem-solving and solution- oriented.
Yours faithfully,
Audreyanna Thomas
