Dear Editor,
Demerara Waves in a report carried on September 23, 2019, quoted President David Granger in his address to the members of the International Decade for People of African Descent Assembly (IDPADA) annual meeting on Sunday 22, 2019, as saying the following: “My administration’s priority is ensuring that Guyanese have access to high- quality, free education across the country instead of doing `handouts’ to the population. It does not speak about gifts, it does not speak about `handouts’, it does not speak about vouchers. It speaks about education…. “.
If the President is reported correctly, his remarks represent his profound, public rejection of the WPA‘s proposal that 10% of the oil revenues be set aside for payments of US$5,000 annually, to Guyanese households.
The timing and the occasion chosen by President Granger to address this matter are of great significance. The occasion was at a major assembly of Africans and their organizational leadership, and it was delivered shortly before his anticipated announcement of a date for national and regional elections.
Politically, there are lots of concern by members of the public about the content of his statement: (1) The President seems to be confident that his constituents and the Guyanese masses have no interest in WPA’s cash transfers proposal. (2) The statement is unhelpful and could adversely affect his and the coalition’s re-election efforts. (3) The President has conveyed the impression that he is running a one-man party/one party coalition since it is public knowledge that both the WPA and AFC support the cash transfer proposal.
Without explicitly mentioning the WPA’s proposal, his inferences leave no question of his intent particularly in light of his remarks about a party leader’s frequent writings in the press etc.
I have had in the past to express my disappointment at the way our political leaders discuss important national issues. Often their preferred tactic is to avoid direct debate on the subject and instead, seek to shift the discourse away from what was intended. Somehow, this practice is seen as smart politics. In adhering to this practice little or no concern is shown for the miseducation of the masses and the destruction of the political culture. Rather than investing in an open, frank and honest public debate on national policy, everything is done in an adversarial manner. Presumably, the advocates of this approach see it as being far superior to civil discourse.
I wish at this time to examine how the discussions on Professor Thomas’ proposal for direct cash transfers to households by its detractors, have played out in the media. Those critics in and out of government, usually address the matter in a way that seeks to create the erroneous contention that Thomas and the WPA want most or all of the oil revenue to be used to give direct cash transfers to Guyanese households. They do so knowing that the proposal is for 10% of the revenues to be put aside for the payment of this benefit annually. In this context, one doesn’t have to be proficient in mathematics to know that given the above the government is left with 90% of the oil revenues to spend as it chooses, be it on education, health, infrastructure, etc.
The critics of the proposal have allowed their dislike of the WPA and their contempt for the poor and powerless to inhibit their understanding of why such a programme is needed and should be introduced in Guyana. Their failure to comprehend the “why” of it defies logic, good governance, and social justice.
In fairness to President Granger I believe that if his reported utterances were not intended to be a response to the WPA’s direct cash transfer proposal, he should publicly, clarify his position, particularly since his recently reported statement is consistent with those he made earlier on the issue. This is a necessary step in an attempt at avoiding negative and adverse political consequences to his and the coalition’s re-election efforts. Comrade Granger is well advised to remove ambiguity on his position.
As it stands there is nothing politically, to be gained from him being misunderstood on what a large segment of the coalition’s supporters sees as a very important issue. For the President to continue to give the impression this is not a matter that is important to his agenda, is to signal that he is engaged in infantile politics.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
