Pragmatic economic governance

To most observers, it has become obvious that, since 2008, the global financial contradictions would need more than facile cosmetic “tweakings” - especially now that they have become exacerbated by the Ukraine War. This conclusion has forced many leaders of countries in crisis to re-examine the structural bases of their economies, in attempts to craft comprehensive and coherent responses that go beyond merely ameliorating symptoms.

The triumph of the neo-capitalist model over the socialist alternative at the end of the 1980s was supposed to have delivered us to the “end of history”. The victorious neo-liberals never felt it necessary to really articulate an “ideology”. Their most popular exposition, dubbed the “Washington Consensus”, was merely the title an economist tagged on to his compilation of demands made by IMF/World Bank on faltering Latin American economies, including Guyana’s.

It is clear that the extreme ideologies - pure socialism and unfettered capitalism - have failed the test: the former because of too few incentives, and the latter because of booms and busts, unproductive speculations, and uncontrolled negative externalities. As most of the countries attempt to pick up the pieces from the neo-liberal Titanic, they are all adopting policies – to a lesser or greater extent – from the “middleway” social democratic (S.D.) tradition, pioneered in Europe over a century ago.

These policies include a “mixed economy” of both privately and publicly owned enterprises; a wide range of subsidised or publicly provided social services – especially health and education; regulation of enterprises for the benefit of wider societal interests; progressive taxation; rule of law; and social justice and entrenched human rights etc. Those countries that held on to their S.D. policies to a greater degree, such as Germany and India, have fared better than those that plunged deepest into the neo-liberal vertigo of market fundamentalism – such as Britain and the US. The latter duo’s praxis – dubbed “Anglo-American” capitalism by the Germans, has however still denied the assumption of any ideology.

At the onset of the crisis, the greatest focus was placed on rescuing the financial system, which crumbled because of the false assumption that the self-regulated market could best spread the risks it was supposed to intermediate. In S.D. fashion, governments have had to move in massively at both the national and international (IMF) levels to stop the haemorrhaging, which is still ongoing. As the crisis inevitably spilled over into the real economy, the major S.D. tools of governmental fiscal and monetary policy were ratcheted up – they had become standard after WWII. This is also ongoing.

There is now acceptance of the fundamental S.D. position: that Government must play a greater role in ensuring that the goals of society are fulfilled, and that the primary goal is that programmes must deliver the greatest good to the greatest number, and not just the top one percent. With this in mind, it is quite appropriate that other S.D. programmes for social justice are being proposed at this juncture.

The case for widening the S.D. approach may best be made at this juncture in terms of the handling of risks which have been brought to the fore in the financial meltdown. Social democrats have long argued that the capacity to share and manage risks most effectively is at the societal level, rather than at the individual level. The set of policies traditionally associated with social democracy may be regarded as responses to a range of risks facing individuals, from health risks to uncertain life chances. The neo-liberal critique has posited that the S.D. welfare state approach killed initiatives, but we have seen that unregulated markets are not the answer.

The collapse of the neo-liberal paradigm does not mean an atavistic return to the ideas, policies and practices of the post-war social democratic era. Social democrats must learn from the mistakes of that era, and retain what was valuable in the failed experiment, including a commitment to sound fiscal policy and a rejection of protectionist restrictions on trade in goods and services. This constant adjustment to the test of experience, rather than arguing only from first principles, is the distinguishing feature of the ideology of social democracy.

Dear Editor,

Our citizens’ patience has been stretched and tested in anticipation of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) hosting of the outstanding LGE. One should not expect that such tolerance would be indeterminately elastic. By now it is recognized that the delaying strategies from Opposition forces will not stop, and every excuse would lead to another frustrating suppression.

The PPP/C Government has since provided critical resources to complement each year of hopeful promise, and GECOM is now expected to deliver and remove the stymieing of benefits to our citizens. The Government's recent 2023 Budget generously recommends financial allocations of G$5.2 billion for the use of GECOM. Notably, these provisions come into play following significant allocations since 2021, when G$1.8 billion was provided, followed by a revised G$2.9 billion in 2022.

Understandably, the March 2020 debacle concerning the abusive attempt to steal power by Opposition forces at the General and Regional Elections informed necessary adjustments to the abused controls. They are not to the extent that the necessary remedial position cannot be put in place to deliver the LGEs promised in 2021, 2022, and now 2023.

The LGE was last held in 2018, highlighting the way overdue timeline on the legal schedule. While these elections cannot supersede priority over any General and Regional Election call, the overwhelming flimsy excuses from the Opposition lack the potency of any significant reasons for further delay. Of note, GECOM has followed the legal framework for the preparation of the List of Voters, and we must have these elections now.

The Chairperson, Justice Claudette Singh, must assert herself, and not allow any Commissioner to frustrate the work of the Commission. It is indeed heartening to read and hear that the Commission adopted the report from the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), confirming changes to some constituency boundaries.

There is now a more representative position in many Local Authority Areas, which takes into consideration population shifts influenced by the PPP/C’s massive housing drive, and corrects previous deliberate gerrymandering designed at providing the Opposition with specific advantages. Consequently, the Commission, through its Secretariat, would be in an enabled position to prepare an updated Register of Voters in the respective Local Authority Areas.

The ongoing continuous registration process comes after a previously announced and again delayed

LGEs date set for March this year. The process, however, would allow GECOM to have all the relevant information that would be up-to-date to a determined cutoff point. It follows that, with a short period of Claims and Objections, the preparation of the Register of Voters will be completed. Once achieved, the CEO is required to present the updated Voters List to the Commission for ratification, enabling the Chairperson of the Commission to write the Minister of Local Government, expressing GECOM's readiness for the holding of the LGEs.

Further, it is applaudable that, over the past months, GECOM utilised provided taxpayers’ resources to train identified persons who are expected to work at the LGEs. The utilised expenditures cannot be allowed to be defused uselessly at the expense of necessitating a full set of training. In this respect, there are national expectations that the CEO would now move swiftly to prepare his work plan in preparation for the holding of LGEs at the earliest date.

Editor, there is no doubt that the upcoming Local Government Elections would serve as a reminder of the PPPC Government’s commitment to good governance and transparency across every community, and would provide much-needed renewal to the Local Government System.

With the massive allocation for the holding of LGEs, GECOM must uphold its mandate and hold the elections in order to strengthen local democracy.

The present process of continuous registration seems to be going smoothly. Both the category ‘A’ and the category ‘B’ citizens are making full use of the opportunity to get registered. The Government recognizes and delivered on its commitments, and the budget would certainly help to establish a realistic platform to guarantee a better life for our people.

It cannot be denied that the PPP/C Government has moved with expedient speed in advancing its committed development agenda, while synchronizing the benefits for citizens across a “One Guyana” platform. There is also genuine awareness that the Opposition cabal would stop at nothing to derail this upward trajectory. Consequently, GECOM must not find itself influenced by the naysayers who are trying desperately to make our people collateral damage. The Commission led by (retired) Justice Madam Claudette Singh MUST ensure the delivery of the entity’s mandate freely and fairly.

This column calls on GECOM to move the process forward now!

Sincerely,

Neil Kumar