Dear Editor,
In the November 15-21, 2014 edition of The Economist magazine an article was published on Guyana on page forty-four. The article was titled ‘A 60-year schism.’ Firstly, it is good to know that Guyana attracted the attention of the editors of The Economist. I guess in a magazine of this nature, any publicity is good for Guyana and I do believe that we can build on this interest by endeavouring to shift the reports more in the direction of what Guyana can become and how we plan to get there.
The article was quite accurate and what I found particularly interesting was the care to be balanced, and a great awareness of the reporter and editors to the sensitivities of the issue being reported. But what else did I expect? It is The Economist magazine.
Nevertheless, the article focused on the prorogation of parliament to avoid a no-confidence vote. It went further to delve into the race-based politics and also hinted that this was one of the reasons Guyana has remained relatively poor. Reference was also made to legislation which was not passed, such as the money-laundering bill; as well as the absence of local government elections since 1994. The article concluded with the sentence, “Some Guyanese want to move beyond the stalemate.”
I wish to state that not only do we want to move beyond the stalemate, we are fed-up with the stalemate. What is particularly frustrating is the fact that Guyana has so much potential for growth and development but has been caught in this seemingly never-ending unfortunate situation for 60 years.
Nonetheless, to the editors of The Economist, as citizens we have realized that for too long we have left the development and the conceptualization and designing of our country and economy largely to our politicians, but that is changing; we are getting involved and want to be involved. We have a dream that by 2032 Guyana will become the Singapore of South America (some citizens are convinced that this can be realized before) and that Guyana will become the next hotspot for business and development in the Caribbean.
We will depend on The Economist to promote us and our efforts to attract credible investors and other international interest.
As citizens, we recognize for this to happen we need better governance – more transparency and accountability, better security, higher social capital – for instance, better cohesion between the races and the political and other leadership – improved human capital and infrastructure and overall, a more functional economy, society and country, and we are committed to work towards achieving these and to hold our leaders accountable.
Finally, it is important to note that depending on how one views it, the no-confidence motion could be a good intervention for this country. In my view it is one of the best things that could happen to Guyana. There is a saying that ‘change comes either through something dramatic and/or from something traumatic’; the no-confidence motion is a bit of both. For profound change to happen there is need for a trigger; after 60 years of this rift, Guyana and Guyanese needed a trigger with sufficient force to create an environment for real change. Since the no-confidence motion was submitted to the Clerk of the National Assembly, a number of events and actions were triggered in Guyana at the individual, institutional and societal levels which would not have ordinarily been triggered.
So, keep an eye on our country and economy; this is indeed, our ‘Finest Hour.’
Yours faithfully,
Audreyanna Thomas
