Dear Editor,
Bill Cotton asks, ‘Who will offer a vision of Guyana 2030 that is inclusive and acceptable to all?” I think the inclusivity part is the easier part of this question; the acceptance part is unrealizable across the board but is realizable in pockets of planning and success. I suppose this can be shown in the unfolding of the present strategic plan 2021 to 2025. The next plan should cover 2026 to 2030 with 2030 being the transforming year to a new plan 2031 to 2034. The assumption would be that the performance indicators of all key sectors covered by the 2021 to 2025 plan can be scrutinized to identify areas of achievement, of outstanding or mediocre performance and of outright failure. Without honest and objective analysis of performance the next planning period will be built on sand.
However, I am assuming that Bill Cotton meant more than dollar measures of development. He is asking about human development when he asks that the vision of Guyana ‘is acceptable to all’. Are the people involved in such development envisioned? Are they resisting initiatives, and if so, why? Are they suggesting initiatives which exemplify ‘buy in’? What will be the measures of ‘acceptance’? Visioning is a dynamic process, and quite often the vision of one period is modified for a new reality. A vision is not a bronze image. It is in fact living thought which can have suggested revisions even while it is dictating action for a current period. A vision can be sustained over more than one planning period but may have revised performance indicators depending on the current reality. A strategic period with its controlling vision must be actively monitored. Implementation has to be gauged constantly. If the plan becomes a dead piece of writing the foundation is laid for whimsical economic and governing practices. That is the bacchanal road!
Traditional ethnic distrust is part of the heritage of Guyana. Love of Guyana may determine if it can be re-imaged into objective opposition and critical comment. It can become a crucial input into the economic/social transformation of this large and rich country, Guyana. If it is a reality of the landscape it has to be factored in to transformational thought. The political opposition, as a vocal force, must be accurate and determined in its analyses. The opposition has great worth in a transformational setting and in ensuring accuracy and impartial service. The dissenting voice is worthwhile! Freedom to express thought must be encouraged and upheld.
Given inherited trust challenges, however, the data for justification of any national vision must be collected and presented by reputable and neutral sources. Consultants are very expensive! Guyana with its grand prosperity can afford to pay any number of internationally reputable consultants who undertake regional collection of data. Spend many millions (a tiny portion of oil income) for this year long, possibly more than year long, exercise. Consultants can be assigned to regions and the data collection drive would record on questionnaires and on templates, on audio, responses from all age groups including primary school children and the aged. Such a data collection exercise can cause expectant excitement about being heard, about having a voice.
David Hinds wrote about republicanism recently. Getting data from all regions is one way of springboarding to involvement of ‘all’. It is implementation of inclusivity especially of far flung and often unnoticed settlements. Data sorted and presented regionally would show the interest of the powers that be in serving all, in making prosperity affect the lives of all. A sad witness to prosperity is economic and social suffering! A ‘culture of silence’ can destroy developmental efforts. An inclusive vision is of much less worth if it is
determined only on the coastal strip, which is just a small part of Guyana’s extensive geographical space. Paying for needed expertise in laying a dependable foundation for visioning makes good sense. It can ensure a level of nationwide communication which is organized to produce information which underpins sound planning. Consultants to the First Nations must be chosen in an atmosphere of respect and sensitivity. Consultants from among the First Nations populations of Canada and the USA, or both, can be brought in. Their presence alongside toshaos and tribal elders may enhance the quality of communication the First Nations of Guyana are willing to give.
So, yes, Bill Cotton. Inclusivity is possible. Acceptance might be ‘pie in the sky’ but a piece of pie is better than no pie at all. The possibility of acceptance will be substantially improved if citizens even in far flung areas believe that they have had a chance to say what is on their minds. What will the vision 2030 and onward be? If the leadup to the vision is transparent and efficiently managed then both the opposition and those in the driver’s seat will emerge as winners. They will be able to bargain knowing the views of the electorate.
Governments are transient. All politicians need to remember this. What will you leave behind in terms of vision and togetherness? Guyana can set a regional example of how to govern especially when the purse is the largest in the whole region. The government needs to spend constantly and in large measure to nurture unusual and very creative, some of them risky, problem solving. If the population feels unmuzzled the goals of inclusivity and of a powerful vision are very possible. Acceptance by all? Never 100%. Governing is hard work! So I say.
Sincerely,
Gabriella Rodriguez
