The inequitable distribution of our progress

In Plastic City live those poor and isolated from the progress we often hear about; those without basic facilities like water and sanitation; those who are disempowered and unable to exert their human rights but find comfort in knowing they at least have a roof over their heads. To some, the residents of the Plastic City squatting area represent a case of people embracing squalor and hardship, not a case of people suffering because we have no balanced approach to development.

And yet, leaving Plastic City and any of the other squatting areas around this country is not simply a matter of people getting up and improving their lot but also about government policies that offer every citizen a fair chance and equal opportunities. Today, poverty remains a significant concern in our society, and though we welcome the news that Guyana’s economic growth has remained unbroken for seven years, questions persist about the impact this has had on the progress of our people.

The reports about our strong macroeconomic fundamentals are never detailed and/or expansive enough to include the level of destitution in our society, and economic growth does not automatically translate into human development. To get an accurate picture of this we have to pay closer attention to the United Nations Human Development Report, which indicated that Guyana achieved medium human development in 2013 and placed us at 118 in the world, a little ahead of Haiti and at the bottom of the regional index.

President of the Caribbean Development Bank Dr Warren Smith called particular attention to the issue of our economic growth and its impact on human development when he addressed a Canadian High Commission-sponsored investment conference here last June. He had observed that despite Guyana’s economic growth, overall socio-economic developments may not have improved significantly and needs detailed examination. He said, “Encouraging as the results are overall, we should ask ourselves: Will this performance continue? How can we get better results? And, what are the lessons for the future?”

The economic advancement of a few citizens does not count for general progress though this is what continues to stare us in the face: the rapid rise in fortunes of an elite network of citizens who are benefiting from our democracy as if reaping the rewards of a personal venture. These are the citizens who have access to quality healthcare, better education, better housing, and the law works for them.

Outside of their world, healthcare is free but not rights-based or patient-centred and those who utilise the system are often the disadvantaged citizens, who are usually uninformed about their rights to access timely and acceptable care. Similarly, education is free but the standard is not the same countrywide—and, even more disturbing, according to the World Health Organisation, school is the most common place for sexual violence for massive populations of poor girls in the developing world, and a key reason girls drop out, eroding the opportunity of education.

And while access to housing has improved, affordability remains a major issue.  An unacceptable number of Guyanese continue to live in inadequate housing – they are unable to gain and sustain a safe and secure home and community in which to live in peace and dignity.

On the issue of the poor and access to justice, the case of Colwyn Harding serves as a painful reminder of who the law is really working for. For many of us, cases never make it to trial and when they do the hearings move at a snail’s pace, files get lost and police witnesses fail to show up in court.

Today, our Plastic City and Pigeon Island populations exist in a world foreign to the experience and imagination of our country’s elite. The squalor and hardship which they have seemingly embraced and their desire to remain there speak to a generation of people who live apart from the familiar categories of haves and haves-not – these are people who never had.

The Plastic City and Pigeon Island populations, and many other citizens living in poverty in Guyana have repeatedly heard the slogan, “Let progress continue” but have no idea what that means. In fact, that slogan has never meant anything to them.

We have been looking at economic indicators of progress and what we have been able to achieve—albeit in a region where growth has been moderate for years—but have failed to study more carefully the inequitable distribution of our progress over this period. In the same way, we have been pointing to the number of registered vehicles on our streets as if this were an important indicator of human development. In other words, our discussions about progress leave very little room to talk about inequality.

The painful truth is that our political representatives in government have no balanced approach to development, and this includes the opposition parties. In fact, there is no common agenda on national issues.

Tomorrow, the Guyana Equality Forum (GEF) has organised a walk for equality as part of a consistent movement advocating for equal rights and justice for all Guyanese. The walk moves off from Parade ground at 3 pm. No matter what we have planned for tomorrow, it is important that we join the walk to press for social policies which promote inclusion, and which promote non-discrimination and equal treatment.

The GEF said its mission is to combat all forms of discrimination and inequality—a mandate which needs to be adopted nationally, since poverty undermines the quality of life for everyone in any economy, with serious social implications.

The United Nations emphasises that pro-poor policies and significant investments in people’s capabilities – through a focus on education, nutrition and health, and employment skills—can expand access to decent work and provide for sustained progress.

The UN Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor said in its first report a few years ago that growth and social policies need to reinforce each other. The report observed:

“In too many countries, the laws, institutions, and policies governing economic, social, and political affairs deny a large part of society the chance to participate on equal terms. The rules of the game are unfair. This is not only morally unacceptable; it stunts economic development and can readily undermine stability and security. The outcomes of governance, that is, the cumulative effect of policies and institutions on peoples’ lives, will only change if the processes of governance are fundamentally changed”.

We need to press for government priorities to be people-centred and we need to have more real discussions about progress. We also need to look at the structural mechanisms which allow inequality to persist in our society—the economic, political and social processes that are behind the inequality.

More importantly, we need to keep an eye on how government is treating the marginalised and vulnerable populations in our society. We cannot say “Let progress continue” while people are living on the fringes of our society, poor and disempowered. Progress has to include them.

Best Editorial I’ve Read For The Year!

I read this editorial and as usual was impressed with the quality of writing, the level of analysis and lastly, the truth about our politics back home. It is this kind of writing which inspires me to strengthen my craft. The editorial was written by Stabroek News editor-in-chief; he is one of the best editors working anywhere, period. I publish in-part this excellent editorial with a link to read the full article on Stabroek News’ website.

APNU’s deals with the government

No matter how it is parsed or spun, APNU’s deal-making last week with the PPP/C government will be seen as a continuation of the historic engagement of the duopoly that has bestridden the political landscape for the last 55 years or so and which has left the country wallowing in the backwaters of development and deeply divided.

In respect of the expectations of the  AFC, many blunt descriptions can be applied to the nature of APNU’s foray into the Office of the President when certain commitments were given and it seems that the glimmers of a deal for the passage of the 2012 budget developed. If APNU wanted its mission to OP to be described as honourable and statesman-like then it required at least a modicum of courtesy to the AFC; perhaps a discussion of what should be broached with President Ramotar or the inclusion of an AFC representative. There was inexplicably none of this. Worse, APNU appeared to want to keep this meeting a secret for as long as possible. Did APNU’s Head, Mr David Granger go to OP with his APNU cap on or as Opposition Leader? Neither capacity justifies the exclusion of the AFC. Mr Granger would no doubt understandthat wherever he goes these days he is first and foremost the Leader of the Opposition and that entails representing not only the views of APNU MPs but the AFC’s MPs. In a consultative democracy representation requires consultation at the minimum with the various groups, in this case, the AFC and the constituents of APNU.  APNU’s shutting out of the AFC is just as crass as the government’s disdain for the opposition parties in the 9th Parliament.

APNU undoubtedly has complete freedom of action but its constituency would no doubt counsel that this freedom be exercised wisely, judiciously and honourably. For the first time since 1992, the opposition has been gifted – via the elections results – with the opportunity to hold the blatant excesses of PPP/Civic governance in check. The clearest and most uncomplicated way for that to be accomplished is by means of a common agenda subscribed to by the two opposition parties and then presented to the government for mature discussion. The clearest and most viable mechanism through which this joint programme could be achieved is the expressing of the 33 opposition votes in Parliament as compared to the government’s 32. Reducing this equation to 33, 26 and seven is pure senselessness.

Just months after the elections, APNU has managed to undermine whatever solidarity existed with the AFC and it now has a lot of repair work to do.  Further, it has `tied bundle’ with a notoriously untrustworthy dialogue partner in the PPP/C whose recalcitrance, prevarication and backsliding have been well established particularly in the last decade. The failed Jagdeo-Hoyte and the Jagdeo-Corbin talks are a stark testament to the failure of our politicians at the highest levels. What happens if these talks between APNU and the government fall apart? Wouldn’t APNU have to recombine its 26 with the AFC’s seven? What sense does the separation at this early point make at all except if there was a larger deal on the table e.g. a government of national unity as APNU wants but even then the AFC would still have to be involved? Whatever epiphany APNU conjured up of the Ramotar administration, it has embarked upon a course that will lead to harsh judgements from its constituency and other stakeholders if expected radical reforms aren’t evident in reasonable time. The majority which voted against the PPP/C’s record would have done so for many reasons foremost among which would have been the twisted governance, corruption, shady deals, a stagnant economy and the enriching of a select few while poverty remains insidious in parts of the country.

No doubt APNU’s engagement with the government could lead to the passage of the 2012 budget. That would be a positive development for the country but would it be a budget shorn of the wastage, unaffordable employment contracts and ill-advised deals? ….