Dear Editor,
There has been some concern over the involvement of developed countries in the domestic affairs of developing countries and I wish to address this point by asking the following question. Is it totally a case of neo-colonialism or partly the inability and unwillingness of governments in developing countries to attract, recruit and take advice from the best expertise available, in many cases, locally; and to be more comprehensive in building the capabilities of its public sector in the widest possible way?
As Guyana develops and emerges as what I believe to be a leading nation in the Caribbean and among South American countries, we have to develop a greater understanding of and place a higher value on our indigenous knowledge.
Indeed, there is a very important role for developed countries in the progress of developing countries, nevertheless, I believe that the time has come for countries like Guyana, to really analyze and evaluate what its added value is in the development arena. Why are countries from the west, east and south interested in engaging and supporting Guyana in its growth and development? What do we have to offer? This analysis and evaluation is important as we develop a set of principles and values from which Guyana’s long-term development programme and engagement with various regions will be built.
In doing this assessment consideration must be given to the context of development as we know it. Let’s go back to the 1940s when the focus was on modern development economics which is the branch of economics concerned with improving conditions in low income countries. The focus at that time was largely on material enrichment, which is basically expanding the volume of production of goods and services.
Then some time in the late 1980s, early 1990s, the human development concept started to become popular and to a large extent, changed the course of development, and how developed countries engaged developing countries in development.
The human development approach expanded the development perspective beyond the fixation of economic growth and included a broader and more inclusive view of people’s capacities – not just to gain a higher income but also to enlarge their choices; to know more, do more, and to have the health, skills and the vigour to lead full and satisfying lives.
While the introduction of the human development concept has explained the objectives of development more clearly than in the past, the mechanisms for achieving development have become somewhat more elusive.
Some time in the middle of the last century around which time the idea of development was becoming popular, there was a view that all poor countries had to do was imitate rich countries, using similar strategies and courses of action, and that since they had the examples of the rich countries, they should be able to develop more rapidly.
It was felt that poor countries would accelerate their development if they took advantage of the lessons learnt from the rich countries, by using proven their measures, technologies and expertise. Thus, there was a period in development where experts from the rich countries were deployed to poor countries to deposit the skills and knowledge that it was thought were needed in these poor countries to accelerate their growth and development. During this time, countries like Guyana were engaged in many counterpart arrangements, where locals were understudying expatriates since it was felt that outsiders could fill the gaps in the knowledge base with quick injections of knowledge.
At that time, the language in development was development assistance, and the transfer of skills and systems was called technical assistance. Many development practitioners at the time were concerned that the term ‘assistance’ implied inequality and dependency for the poor countries instead of the spirit of partnership, which gives more a perception of equity.
Eventually, perceptions changed and to some extent behaviour; this saw a change in the language, and international aid was referred to as development cooperation, and knowledge transfer was referred to as technical cooperation which embodies more of a spirit of partnership between developed and developing countries.
Nevertheless, one still gets the sense from the behaviour of some developed countries, that the approach is still development assistance and technical assistance, as against development cooperation and technical cooperation. However, here is where I think that developing countries such as Guyana are lacking in bringing that balance to the development cooperation programme.
In the Guyana context for example, the government and the people of Guyana have to place a higher value on the indigenous knowledge in the society – the information, skills and systems which have been working for us for decades and are intricately connected to the whole construct of what we call the Guyanese society and Guyana; for example, our family structure.
At this stage of our development we have to have a fair idea of what is our baby and what is the bath water, and as developed countries bring the modern knowledge, we must have the expertise and competence to know that we should throw away the bath water and keep the baby. This has been a grave deficiency in developing countries – placing a higher value on its indigenous knowledge.
Therefore I like the idea of the new government to include persons of the calibre of Professor Clive Thomas in the government. Professor Thomas has an excellent understanding of both the modern and indigenous knowledge; he knows the value of keeping the baby and the need to throw away the bath water.
While there is a lot that we can learn from the West, I think that there are many things that we can also learn from the East and South, particularly the East. For example, the Chinese are long term planners and strategic thinkers. That is something they can teach us. China did not become a contender for global leadership overnight; there was a whole strategizing and planning process that was taking place; and from the impact of the Chinese involvement globally, this was years in the making.
I am therefore advocating that cabinet abandons the policy which states that that body should approve overseas training for public servants; surely, cabinet has more important things to do. Ministers and senior managers of ministries and government agencies are quite competent to determine the best choice of participants for overseas training. Government has to allow its staff members to be empowered and become exposed to how other countries are finding solutions to their development challenges so that they can strengthen government, the public sector and enable Guyana to be more of a partner in development and generally in local, regional and international affairs.
I wish to share an example of how important it is for us to have the right expertise and competence. Someone I know who is now living in North America, once said to me that “Guyanese are so backward, they say plaster, when the right word is band aid,” so one day I calmly asked the person if they knew that band aid was a kind of plaster? We need more persons in government and negotiating on our behalf to know the difference between a band aid and a plaster, and not because it comes from the developed world it is necessarily right for us.
Albert Einstein said that what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right. The point here is that development is still an experiment and counties like Guyana can limit the level to which the experiment is done on Guyana.
Finally, another point to note is that the priorities for the development agenda in developed countries are influenced largely by the biases and preferences of a particular administration and heads of international agencies at various points, and are sometimes time specific, hence, it is it is imperative for countries like Guyana to have a clear set of principles and values upon which the country will be built in the longer term.
Yours faithfully,
Audreyanna Thomas
