Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Dear Editor,
I would like to build on Dr. Kwesi Sansculotte-Greeenidge’s point in his letter to Stabroek News on 13 January and Mr. Ralph Ramkarran’s ‘Conversation Tree’ article on 17 January, 2020; both writers alluded to the fact that Guyana needs to develop a different governance model or approach to Governance.
I also wish to reference an article that was published in the Kaieteur News on 3 January, titled ‘Guyana cannot take another five years to get ready for oil’. This article was based on statements made by the Country Manager for the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Sophie Makonnen, where the Country Manager alluded to the need to increase the pace and widen the scale of the country’s preparation for oil and gas. The article stated ‘but the difference between today and a few years ago, she said, is that there are key documents which the financial institution [IDB] helped produced that are at the PPP/C’s disposal.
“…They don’t have to be in agreement with everything that was produced. But it’s something to start working with. It’s not a blank sheet of paper,” the IDB Country Manager stressed’.
Further, the article stated ‘The Inter-American Development Bank has been one of Guyana’s key partners in developing its capacity to manage the oil sector. Towards this end, it has given Guyana several loans, one of which included…Sstrengthening the Technical Functions of the Department of Energy’.
As Guyanese endeavour to develop a new governance model and more sustainable ways of doing development, it is important that we understand why our leaders behave the way they do? Why we as a people accept the behaviour of our leaders? And why we as a people behave the way we do?
Let us try to examine some of the reasons why we do things the way we do them? What are some of the considerations when making decisions around governance and development? For example, what considerations go into a citizen deciding who to vote for. I would like to suggest that the absence of the concept of continuity in much of our development planning and implementation, as well as our approach to governance, impedes our growth and sustainability, which are essential points both Dr. Sansculotte-Greeenidge and Mr. Ramkarran were alluding to.
The PPP and PNC are the major competitors in our politics, as such, one of the key goals or perhaps the primary goal for the PPP, is to win an election so as to keep the PNC out of government, likewise the key objective for the PNC is to keep the PPP out of Government. This plays into the same ethno-politics that Mr. Ramkarran mentioned in his article.
Supporters of both political groups for the past 56 years, to a large extend, have voted to ensure that their party is in power, hence supporting this ‘norm’ in our politics and governance. However, since 2011, like Mr. Ramkarran indicated in the article, we saw evidence that a shift had begun. In 2015, it became more evident and by 2020 that paradigm had definitely shifted. There is now an increasing cry for a more sustainable approach to development and greater inclusiveness in governance.
However, because the PPP and PNC are preoccupied with keeping each other out of government, it became obvious soon after the APNU+AFC had won the 2015 elections, that the government did not really have a comprehensive development plan or strategy for the country, similarly now that the PPP/C is back as the government, it is clear that they do not really have a sound development plan for the country.
However, I understand this because the primary goal is not necessarily sustainable development but rather ethno-political dominance, and once that was achieved in 2015, the government became very relaxed. It was the No Confidence Motion that woke the APNU+AFC government up, but just a bit. The PPP/C on the other hand, from day one, after the declaration on August 2, 2019, began to fortify themselves to ensure that they remain in power. However, the cry for a different governance model is becoming louder and louder.
Albert Einstein said that ‘science is a refinement of everyday living’. Let us now try to put some science to the behaviour of our leaders and us as a people. We will examine two key characteristics of our behavior, be it leader or follower. Chris Rose in his book ‘What Makes People Tick’ refers to three values modes: Settlers, Prospectors and Pioneers; Guyanese, are predominantly ‘Settlers’.
We are also more ‘Initiators’ than ‘Finishers’. Hence, when a new government takes office the orientation is not to ‘finish’ but to ‘initiate’ new things, because the glory for us, is in the ‘initiating’ not so much the ‘finishing’. We have more launch ceremonies than closing ceremonies. What the IDB Country Manager was highlighting, was the importance of continuity to sustainability.
Let us go back to Independence in 1966, when we gained independence from the British, we should have continued with aspects of the British administration and management system. The British developed exceptionally functional administration and management systems which were exported to its colonies and contributed to the success of the British empire, even at a time when Information Communications Technology (ICT) was completely different from what it is today.
The United States have largely built on the British administration and management systems and added the American dimension. In 2019, I asked a colleague from India, what she thought was the single reason for the country becoming one of the fasting developing countries, her response was, its administration system. What India did was to continue with aspects of the British administration and management system and blended it with their own indigenous administration and management systems.
After the PPP/C came into government in 1992, two things, in my view, they should have kept from the PNC era; these are aspects of the civil education and the manufacturing programmes. After the APNU+AFC came into government in 2015, they started to change and abandoned some of what the PPP/C had been doing, however, one programme, in my view, they could have continued, even if in a modified way, was the Low Carbon Development Stategy (LCDS). The PPP/C government is now back in government and is abandoning much of the programmes which the APNU+AFC had initiated; and here we are starting all over again.
What the IDB Country Manager was alluding to, is the need for more continuity in our development. What Mr. Ramkarran and Dr Sansculotte-Greeenidge have indicated, is the need for a new way of doing governance which perhaps is the only way to achieve that continuity and sustainability for the country.
However, for us to transition, even at the level of our consciousness to the point of actually developing and applying a new governance model, there is need for the paradigm to shift further; part of this shift is that we must move beyond being ‘Initiators’ to taking more pride in ‘Finishing’, which requires continuity and building greater trust.
Another key aspect for enabling that paradigm shift to a new governance approach, is that even though we are largely ‘Settlers’ as a people, if we develop strong administration and management systems and adhere to the values and principles of those systems, we will still make significant progress.
However, I guess that much of this analysis is possible in retrospect, but the big question is, where do we go from here? We can start by being aware of the need for us as a people to develop a culture of ‘Finishers’, a /culture of continuity’ as leaders, individuals, in our communities and institutions.
Yours faithfully,
Audreyanna Thomas