Future Notes

I think that with the following statement by Mr. Ravi Dev, the discourse between us about the relevance of federalism to Guyana has come to an end.

The notion that states should seek to increase the happiness of their citizens dates back to before the British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) told us that: “The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty. 

We are now in our 48th year of independence and the most cursory analysis of our dailies will leave us in no doubt that, notwithstanding the claims that we have made significant progress since 1966, and particularly since 1992, for many, Guyana is a very unhappy place.

Half a century ago, with the intention of hurting the economy, the PPP began burning cane fields to make its political point.

Perhaps because I came to federalism by way of my undergraduate study of US government in the 1960s, when state rights was the cry of every racist bigot in the Southern states of the USA, and in one form or another the federal government had to continuously intervene to protect the rights of African Americans, I do not have much faith in federalism’s capacity to play a positive role in the drive for sensible ethnic living in divided societies.

It is not very useful to accuse someone of doing nothing without suggesting what can be done.

I thank Prime Minister Mr Samuel Hinds for taking the time to clarify some of the comments I made in this column last week, in his letter “Shared governance not shared government” (SN 19/04/2013). 

The drive towards dominance has been successful largely because it has been furtive.

If the denudation of opposition-orientated labour organisations is recognised as signifying the initial phase of the march to political/ethnic dominance, the vulgarly partisan 2011 issuing of radio licences and frequencies represents its apogee.

You may recall that, like today with President Ramotar and Mr.

Context is everything and with the defeat of Janet Jagan in 1999, the political context in Guyana changed into the debilitating, acrimonious and anti-developmental environment we now inhabit. 

I decided to consider the Prevention of Discrimination Act, Chapter 99:09 (No.

If I say so myself, by any historical standard, the 1992-97 Cheddi Jagan regime was the most productive period for legislation intended to protect the working people of Guyana.

It does not matter if you are one of the most avowed critics of Cheddi Jagan.

Now that the dust is settling on the parliamentary participation issue involving Minister Clement Rohee, the time might be right for us to consider another important aspect of our political administration thrown up by the Linden debacle.

Last week I argued that a state’s constitution usually takes precedence over general notions of majority rule and I also indicated that the United States Federalist Papers were written to encourage the states to support the ratification of the Federal Constitution and that James Madison believed that one of the best arguments in favour of federalism was its capacity to keep both minority and majority factions in check.

Based on an examination of the existing literature, a situational analysis and discussions with stakeholders, the 2010-2015 “Guyana: Country Cooperation Strategy” (CCS), constructed with the help of the Pan-American Health Organisation (PAHO/WHO), identified some twenty health challenges and seventeen health priorities.

The problems identified by Parliamentary Secretary of Health, Mr. Joseph Hamilton a few weeks ago in relation to personnel and materials management are only symptoms of a system that was recognised to be in need of “major surgery” over a decade ago.

Recently, the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, Mr Joseph Hamilton informed us that “a needful reform is required if the Ministry of Health is to better its current mode of operation.” 

The Leader of the Opposition has laid a motion in the National Assembly for an inquiry to be held into the criminal violence that took place in Guyana between 2004 and 2010.