Dear Editor,
In one of his Tuesday’s articles, GHK Lall notified us that he plans to piggyback on SN’s Cost-of-Living Series “to continue taking the pain of the poor in Guyana and give it prominence before political leaders who avert their eyes, and harden their hearts.” I applaud both him and SN. But, as they conduct this vital campaign on behalf of the struggling masses, I wonder where in the ruling party do they appeal and see hope: in the PPP’s cognition, its psyche, or its morality?
To elaborate, let’s pose and answer three key questions: (i) does the PPP as a government see as its moral duty and obligation or as its sole reason for governing, the eradication of poverty and the guarantee of a high quality of life for all citizens? The PPP instead sees government as mostly self-serving, as an apparatus for crony capitalism, and as an opportunity to enjoy political power for its own sake. Do GHK and SN see hope here?
(ii) putting aside moral duty, does the PPP embrace the idea that citizens must enjoy basic human rights to a good life, the instructions for which are enshrined in international covenants and the Guyana Constitution itself.
In our Constitution, for instance, Article 40 (1) mandates that “every person in Guyana is entitled to the basic right to a happy, creative and productive life, free from hunger, ignorance, and want”. Are GHK and SN depending on the PPP to follow these instructions?
(iii) I know for sure they are not making their appeal or entertaining hope on this third level: that is, to get the PPP to see spending on social programmes
(people’s welfare) as an investment in economic growth and development.
Only APNU speaks about this development approach. At a March Press Conference, in trouncing the PPP for its crowing about the boom in infrastructure, Opposition Leader Norton expounded: “it is Jurassic economic thinking to consider spending on infrastructure (important as it is) as the only form of public investment for economic growth. New development planning, backed up by decades of research and practice, considers what was once termed “public consumption” as actual public investment, given its essence and impact. Therefore, government spending in such realms as health, education, crime prevention, child care, nutrition support and food security, and other social programmes is no longer mischaracterized as public consumption of goods and services, but as investments because such expenditure, in ensuring and enhancing the quality of life of people, drives economic growth and development.”
Given all the above, where does that leave GHK?
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
