Dear Editor,
After the 2006 elections President Jagdeo decided to meet with representatives of the opposition parties in parliament. I wrote in the SN at the time that the parties should add bi-partisan development goals to their agenda, which all parties should agree to pursue vigorously when in office.
Where are we going as a country? The President has not answered this question and now, as I analyze the political inter-play, I have difficulty seeing a defined destination for the end of this year, much less 10 years hence.
I have had the opportunity of listening to motivational speakers, developmental and wealth generation strategists address the approach to personal development. All are unanimous in saying that the most important aspect of meeting goals is writing them down. One must first decide where you want to go. Starting a journey without a destination is like a feather blowing in the wind. Once you decide on what you want to be or where you want to go, you next identify a time frame – 10 years, 20 years – which is then divided into mile/year posts.
Writing down your goals gives them life, presenting you with the ability to reassess your progress along the way and keeping you focused, energized and determined to succeed. Similarly, Guyana needs its goals written down for all to see so that we can all contribute to seeing them fulfilled. Is President Jagdeo willing to have this done? And if not, why not?
I want to believe that our President has special goals for Guyana. I cannot believe that one would aspire to political office without a specific direction in which to take the country. I am particularly disturbed by recent strategies and policies forced on us as a nation, but because there is no identifiable goalpost it is difficult for me to argue with any merit on the wisdom of these strategies.
The question I have about the direction Guyana is heading has to do with the wisdom of Guyana adopting the LCDS and eventually tying up a deal with Norway, thus accepting a paltry payment of a few pieces of silver in exchange of pursuing this country’s true potential. I am even more dumbfounded by the reason for this policy as put forward in Mr Robert Persaud’s letter on January 7, 2010. Mr Persaud wrote, “If this government was interested only in money, then it would have issued out all available state lands as forest concessions for unregulated and unsustainable forestry. There is a great demand for our forest resources, which can bag huge income for our nation, but at the expense of our people’s resolve for sound environmental stewardship of our natural resources. The fact that this is not occurring, even though there are numerous requests from local and overseas forest companies to access additional lands clearly indicates that this government is committed to good governance and accountability.”
Well if that is not the most convoluted argument, destined to further contribute to the under-development of our country, I don’t want to hear the worst. In one of the poorer countries in the world, Mr Persaud states that this country is not “interested only in money”. He recognizes that, “There is a great demand for our forest resources, which can bag huge income for our nation,” but prefers to take an alternative route.
The suggestion that issuing forest concessions means the destruction of our forest is not borne out in the US or Canada. These two countries, where many Guyanese will give an arm and a leg to go because of their affluence, have vibrant timber industries and yet in the case of the US it is recognized that there is more standing forest now, than when Columbus encountered America.
My confusion about this policy warrants an explanation/clarification from Mr Persaud. As a CEO/owner of a struggling company, established with his own hard-earned money complemented by a burdensome bank loan, who is struggling to pay and keep workers in a ever hostile environment, and even though there is tremendous potential for growth (all this representing Guyana right now), would Mr Persaud still come to the same conclusions about the company’s future as he expressed in the quote from him?
Are our goals to have Guyana remain as a perpetually poor country with a population under one million? Are we comfortable with an increasing amount of our population depending on the narco-economy? Are we willing to risk the narco-trade destroying the structure of our democratic governance as is being attempted in Mexico?
The famously leaked emails have thrown a heavy cloud of doubt on the real cause of global warming/cooling. Government should show maturity in admitting this and redirect our way forward. While I agree that global warming and cooling take place and there is a need for strict environmental guidelines, I would never as a leader subject my country to restricted development based on a non-conclusive theory. (I really believe that there should be a referendum, with more than a 60% majority, before government endeavours to make a major policy change as the LCDS mandates.)
More so, given Guyana’s financial position in the world, I would instead be using our available resources to prepare for the effects of global warming/cooling and expand development in other areas. That means better sea defences, faster water removal off the coastlands, disaster preparedness, access roads to high ground in an emergency and establishing all new housing areas inland.
It is ironic that the party which was in the forefront in the fight against imperialism, would go down the route of the LCDS deal with Norway. Further, why does government continue to look at foreign countries for investment dollars while neglecting to agressively solicit and offer attractive deals to foreign Guyanese who have the ability to invest? Who is more likely to re-invest profits in Guyana – foreigners or foreign Guyanese?
Where are we going as a country? I really do worry and need answers. President Jagdeo is travelling a lot. He is experiencing international development close up. I would really like to know how he feels after a trip abroad, touches down at CJIA, travelling down a narrow road with unkempt parapets and little boxes on stilts, then arriving in the capital and being overwhelmed by the stench of rotting garbage, the noise of unruly traffic and then settling down in his office in that same city. Does he come back with visions of the return of the Garden City with structured traffic movement, ever green and well-manicured trees and lawns? Does he envision Berbice as a booming agricultural district with numberless factories? Can he see Linden and Bartica with skyscrapers with a railway linking Georgetown and the two cities and an intricate network of all-weather roads linking us with Brazil and Venezuela?
Can we look forward to Guyanese voluntarily returning home to reside, a population growth way beyond our paltry three quarters of a million and the development of the police force and army to meet the demands of these developments.
The President is not yet fifty, therefore he has the potential of seeing Guyana’s development thirty years in the future. How does he see that future? What can he say he is doing to shape that future? One day I will welcome the opportunity of asking him personally, but for now a letter will suffice.
Yours faithfully,
F Skinner
