By Ronald Austin
Despite our national differences and regrettable entrenched political rancor, it can be agreed by all and sundry that Guyana is in serious need to start making baby steps towards modern development. In this, there is the need to quickly and swiftly address the protection of projects that are geared towards fundamental pillars of modern basic infrastructural development from the whims and fancies of the five-year electoral cycle. With a national development masterplan that is undergirded by legislation, it is not difficult to achieve this. It is an existential need.
THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT MASTERPLAN LEGISLATION
Basic types of infrastructural development such as access to safe water, transportation, energy: affordable and reliable electricity, modern health facilities and digital infrastructure, should not be on the table for political bloodletting. This, of course, cannot be left up to the nature of men and women in Guyana’s political orbit, hope lies in legislation. In service of this interest, a National Development Masterplan Bill ought to be tabled after widespread national consultation and parties agree that the projects contained therein, should not be discontinued when a new government assumes office. Consequential safeguards and legislative protection ought to be offered to these projects to the extent where on the Parliament or the courts could discontinue the implementation of such projects. It is unsustainable to have a sitting government devised a fifteen-year development and after five years, a new government accedes to the office and the projects contained in that national plan are dashed in one fell swoop and the clock starts to tick again on a new national plan which is also subject to the vicissitudes of Guyanese politics.
DEVELOPMENT AND PETTY POLITICS
What drives the aforementioned development? Why is there a penchant to throw away national plans that are well thought out when a new government assumes office? Firstly, and perhaps most important, it is all undergirded by the trappings of petty politics. Secondly, invariably, where ever political parties exist, there is the need to claim credit for national projects and development. Party apparatchiks and leaders love to say ‘it is our idea’ or ‘they are using our vision, they have none of their own’. This political marketing stymies development and continues to suffer development at the altar of petty politics. Why should a transparent and corruption-free Amaila Falls Project receive the axe from a new government? Why should the Green State Development Strategy be subject to the caprices of new leadership?
Thirdly, the politics of development is normally fraught with a keen interest in promoting the dear leader. Insofar as it is caught up in the rapture of the deification of a President, national projects started by one leader are doomed with the changing of the guard. As a consequence, people are denied the benefits of that particular development project. Grandiose projects and big infrastructure edifices are the focus of leaders to build a legacy. Conversely, reversing the achievements of the previous leaders and building your legacy,sadly, becomes the focus of a new leader. It is against this short-sighted backdrop, there is a justified call for legislation protection of critical infrastructural projects that are directly linked to development.
At some point, a nation has to decide that development is of such existential consequence, it must never be tied, inextricably to the five-year electoral cycle. In this, protection via legislation should suffice. It is time for a national development masterplan.
