Worried about parliamentary gridlock and the potential for social unrest, the Private Sector Commission on Thursday convened a luncheon at the Pegasus Hotel to impress upon House Speaker Mr Raphael Trotman and representatives of the parties with seats in the National Assembly the need to work assiduously for compromise and in the national interest.
Those are sentiments that every member of the Guyanese populace and particularly those who cast their ballots last November would espouse. It is meet and within the contours of its role in civil society that the private sector should express its aspirations for national accord. It is now left to be seen whether heed will be taken of its exhortations.
One can set out a whole series of markers and formulae for how the intentions of the various stakeholders could be gauged and charted. In the Guyana context, that could end up being an enormously futile exercise given the proclivity of some of our politicians to subterfuge, prevarication and sleight of hand. To obviate this, we a propose a simple test of the sincerity of the PPP/C as it holds the reins of government and its President also wields power over which bills are assented to and when.
Of all the areas that the private sector would have a direct interest in, the one that stands out for relevance is the construction of the national budget and the economic and tax policies contained therein. As a matter of fact there has been a longstanding concern that PPP/C governments have toyed cruelly with the private sector over the years as it relates to listening to their pre-budget concerns and incorporating some of them into the final document presented.
From perfunctory meetings in the early years on the private sector’s concerns pre-budget, the PPP/C has graduated to not holding consultations at all.
Those in the private sector executive who spoke at Thursday’s forum would be well aware of the histrionics, high drama and the eventual historic chopping that characterized the 2012 budget. No one in the private sector wants to see that again. The possible loss of jobs, the signal of instability to prospective investors and broiling tensions are all dangerous to the social calm that businesses need to thrive.
Messrs Webster, Urling and others in the executive of the private sector and its various arms would be well aware that as early as December 2011 both of the opposition parties represented in Parliament, APNU and the AFC had been calling on the government for the establishment of a tripartite committee to lay down the parameters for the budget considering that the government had lost parliamentary control. The constituting of such a committee would of course represent a tangible acceptance by the government of the loss of control of the legislature. The government through its various spokespersons made the obligatory noises only to gallop ahead with the budget without a full engagement with the joint opposition, or the private sector for that matter. It proceeded unilaterally with its budget and faced the consequences of the opposition cuts after attempts at a deal with APNU failed.
It must be said that by good luck or other means it has neutralized all of the opposition cuts and may be so exhilarated by this achievement that it may be headed down the same path for the 2013 budget.
The private sector is well aware that the joint opposition has once again called on the government to agree to a tripartite committee to thrash out area of priorities and to avoid the ugliness of this year’s parliamentary confrontation. The private sector itself has commended this pathway to all sides. What will happen? It is difficult to tell. The elusiveness of the Minister of Finance, Dr Singh on these matters is troubling and the convenient rhetoric by Presidential advisor, Ms Teixeira is not inspiring.
So instead of aiming at too broad an expanse of the horizon and laying the burden on Speaker Trotman, Messrs Webster and Urling should seek urgent audience with President Ramotar and Finance Minister Singh to determine if they agree with the common sense approach of a tripartite committee and if they evince a willingness to delineate the modalities for what is possible and what is not. This will equip the private sector with the clearest evidence yet of whether the government is prepared to accept the reality of the November 28, 2011 results and to engage in a mature manner with the opposition. This could not be difficult at all for the private sector. It has within its ranks a number of prominent businessmen who have the ears of the government and maintain excellent ties with the current executive.
It is possible that when braced with this proposition that the government may seek to wiggle out of it by saying that it wants a broader agreement and to address what it sees as the irresponsibility and recklessness of the opposition in parliament. Such an excuse should be rejected out of hand as it is a familiar ruse employed by the government. The difficulties that the various committees established after the Linden unrest are currently experiencing is crystal-clear testimony of this. We wish the private sector good luck in this matter.
