Don't Help Us!

It seems a telling sign when government seems to be more willing to publicly squelch investment attempts in Guyana than to work hand-in-hand with those who make valiant efforts to help the country’s failing economy.

There are some who have come back home at much personal sacrifice to help Guyana get on its feet. These idealistic pioneers have left family, careers and comfortable lifestyles in other countries to return to the land of their birth with hopes of helping their homeland find its place on the international economic stage.

That much sacrifice says so much alone, but what says even more is the financial investment such people have poured into Guyana. When a person invests money into an endeavour, you know they are serious. Jobs have been created, community projects have been sprouting up everywhere and the country is better for it – even if just a little bit.

These sons and daughters of Guyana are not here to shake a stern finger at the country in reprimand. They know full well how much Guyana has suffered at the hands of poverty and simply want to invest some of their own hard earned money into their motherland. They have invested millions of dollars from other countries into the local economy with no one twisting their arms to do so. They do it for the love of Guyana.

Were their intentions noble? Absolutely! They believe in their country and want to see it reach the potential we all know is there. These generous souls did not have to return, but they wanted to give something back to the country that helped them become successful.

Even if they wanted to return, just to be with family or friends, they still didn’t have to invest their own money on a large scale. They could have easily lived a comfortable lifestyle with minimal investment into the lives of other Guyanese. Yet they chose a higher road, a road that would help as many people as possible.

What has been their reward? Red tape, provided in ample amounts by the government, and public ridicule from that same government. What a sad affair! Instead of offering public support, the government tells the media that these people are clueless about their investments and didn’t know what they were doing from the start.

The result is lost jobs and a continued suppressed economy. The well-intentioned souls will now pack up shop and in the process will suffer huge financial losses, not to mention a broken spirit.

Other would-be entrepreneurs who have longed for the day when they could invest in their Guyana will now be skittish at best. Frankly, I don’t blame them one bit. Who would? This week, it seems the government has gone out of its way to chase off a native-born Guyanese investor who returned with the hope of helping his country. He has also given substantially to community projects and charities, as well as supported the growth of businesses and media.

Why on earth would anyone want to come back to invest in Guyana after watching the government take down a business before it even got off its feet? No sane and rational person would.

It is Guyana that suffers the most from these tragic events. This particular investor, and any others who have suffered the same, will bounce back. However, it is the people who will endure the worst effects of such governmental insensitivity. The jobs that were to be created are now gone, additional investment monies in the agricultural sector are now gone and future potential investors will maintain at a safe distance.

The question is why? Why is the government being so stubborn? Perhaps it’s because of political vendettas since this particular investor had a history in politics before starting his business ventures. This seems highly probable given the public spectacle they made over the denial of his certification. Or maybe it’s because they don’t want the competition in this specific area, since they do currently control all exports through their own dilapidated facility – a facility the media has yet to be allowed access.

Maybe the reason is actually the one the government has offered, that the new facility is not ready for business. If that is the case, why not allow the media to compare the two facilities and let the public see for themselves how much better the government operated facility is than the new one that was just established? That would certainly allay any notions of improprieties.

In the end though, the reasons for such government actions are not as important as the fact that the people are the ones who once again suffer. Yet again the government has effectively chased off another investor and scared off even more. The message from the government is clear – Don’t help us! Don’t pour money into Guyana. Don’t start new businesses. Don’t create new jobs. Don’t try to help our economy.

If Guyana could pull itself up by the bootstraps and thrive on its own, then it would have certainly done so by now. It’s not as if by supporting these native-born investors the country is accepting charity from foreign investors, these are our own people who want nothing but the best for Guyana.

How much longer will the people endure the actions of flighty and slanted politicians? How much longer will we wallow in self-pity and poverty while government officials sip the best wine and wear the best suits? When will enough be enough? Guyana, the promising and budding Guyana, awaits your rely.

The Must Vote in 2006: A Blueprint for Voters

Choosing competent leaders has never been a strong attribute for us Guyanese. We have the best of intentions, yet something always seems to obstruct our view of the most qualified candidates until it's too late. We also have a bad habit of getting caught up in the hype of the moment every time a politician plays the race card. It's all such a blur sometimes and one can barely determine whether we are being lethargic or just hoodwinked. Either way, no one is to blame but us.

Just for fun, shall we do a test? Which leader would you choose: Machiavelli with his heavy hand and harsh words for those whom he leads? Or Plato's Philosopher King who seeks knowledge and rules with paternalistic concern over his subjects? The most obvious answer would be Plato's version of a kindly King, of course. However, if that was indeed your answer, you have chosen the wrong one.

Machiavelli is always the wrong choice for understandable reasons. Mankind has long outgrown its desire to be led by men who have nothing but their own interests at heart, and have little more than contempt and disgust for the rest of us peons who have historically laboured to the bone to quench the insatiable thirst for power and money in such leaders.

Yet, there are some who still follow the ideology of Machiavelli, though they often mask their evil intentions until they are well within the reach of obtaining their dastardly goals of power and wealth.

However, if they are truly a proper student of Machiavelli, they offer no explanation or apology for their cruel and haughty ways, since they feel they are more than entitled to the degree of adoration and fear they expect from others. Consequently, this means the humiliation and exploitation of anyone within ten feet of the wanna-be-Machiavellian when deep-seated insecurity requires the subjugation of another human being.

However, it is fairly easy to spot such a person, since they typically wear their narcissism as a badge of honour. These treacherous “leaders” tout their egocentrism as self-confidence and are generally oblivious to the spectacle they make of themselves in the process. If one is astute enough to pick up on the telltale signs of a Machiavellian, common sense alone steers us far from the destructive hands of such tyranny and would forbid us from ever casting one single vote in favour of such leadership.

Our other choice of a benevolent King who is charitable and wise, stands in sharp contrast to Machiavelli. Plato, himself a legendary philosopher, envisioned a utopian society under such a reign. How could the people desire anything more than a generous ruler? However, Plato neglected to acknowledge the one aspect of human nature that has never been quelled – the need for freedom.

Though a warm Philosopher King is most certainly more desirable than the harsh and cold Machiavelli, the human drive for freedom is stronger than any other force on the planet. So strong is this drive that fathers have sacrificed their own lives so their children could live in freedom. Men and women alike have taken up arms to fight against a foe who would rob them of their freedom. Therefore, since the title “King” implies the subjection of others, thereby requiring the recognition of the interests of one single man over the interests of the people as a whole, Plato's assertion on this issue is myopic.

Plato's short sighted position barred him from the most advantageous answer to his query of which type of ruler would be the best for the people. His approach was too simple in that it only presented an either/or solution, much like the one presented to you at the start of this column. However, there is at least one more answer availing itself upon those who seek democracy today – the right answer, the most desirable answer is neither. Neither Machiavelli nor the Philosopher King are righteous rulers since the people do not want to be ruled.

Having established this much, it is now necessary to remind the people of Guyana of one very important point – if the people do not choose the leader, they will likely end up with one of the rulers we have discussed, both of which are less than desirable. In fact, the potential outcome is a myriad of such rulers from one extreme to the other and everything in between.

With such an outcome, it is quite clear that there will be no room for a democratic leader for the people, but instead a mix of sovereigns who have either clawed their way to the top by ridding themselves of competition through any means necessary, or by slyly filing their way past the deserving leaders with the nod of head from a nepotistic royal. Either way, the people and their freedom are at grave risk.

In Guyana , we are complacent with our vote and apathetic concerning our freedom. We are docile in regards to politics to the point that our very independence is at risk.

We have created a situation ripe for a Machiavelli or Philosopher King. Indeed, some even reminisce of our monarchical days and long for the return of a benevolent King to take charge of the country and restore its former glory. This is a sad condition - that we would rather relinquish our independence than act upon our responsibilities as informed voters of a free and democratic country. Heaven forbid!

What are the guidelines by which the people should consider any leader worthy of a vote? Such guidelines differ from person to person, though there are some mainstays, a blueprint, if you will, that almost every well-informed voter employs.

Here is a set of leadership qualities to consider when deciding who will get your vote:

• Competency is a must in leadership
  
  Everyone makes mistakes, but when it comes to running a nation, it is vital to choose those who have demonstrated a clear ability to get the job done. Mistakes in government can have a long-standing impact on thousands of people. Guyana simply cannot afford any more of these kinds of mistakes.
  
• Diplomacy is standard practice
  
  Choose only leaders who are capable of being diplomatic and willing to work with others to accomplish the greatest good for all interested parties. There will be times when occasional issues deserve an uncompromising stance, but 99 percent of being a good leader is knowing how to be diplomatic.
  
• A good leader has proven himself/herself in the community
  
  Whether it is through business, academia or community service - a good leader has a proven track record for being trustworthy and accessible. One good rule of thumb is to dismiss all consideration regarding any politician caught in a compromising position. Guyana should demand only those with the highest integrity to lead our country.
  
• A good leader knows he is a servant of the people
  
  A good way to weed out the Machiavellians is to listen to their speeches. If they talk more about themselves than about the people they intend to serve, this is a sure way to gauge where their interests will lie once in office. Humility is a quality often in want in politicians, but good leaders have it in abundance.
  
• A good leader knows where to place his alliance
  
  If a leader is seeking re-election, check his/her voting record to see if party lines were more important than the best interests of the people. Never vote for those who are puppets of back room politicians.

You will also find your own important issues to add to this list as you carefully weigh the decision of who gets your vote. Please take note of one significant factor missing in the listed qualities of a good leader – race. Race is not, nor has it ever been, a determining factor for good leadership. In fact, I would go so far as to say that any leader who makes such a claim is not only a bad leader, but also a despot. Guyana, for heaven's sake, no – for your children's sake, choose your conscience over your race when electing a leader!

It is vital to the preservation of our country and our independence that we vote. By opening the door to political apathy and blind racism, we have also opened the door to Machiavellians. Your vote, and mine, can slam that door shut forever. Will you refuse power-hungry rulers their claim on your independence? How far will you go to protect your freedom?

All the way to the voting booth with your conscience intact? Fair Guyana, your Guyana, awaits your reply.

The Voice of Dissent - A true mark of democracy

The health of any democratic state can be measured by the degree to which its citizens feel free to voice their dissent against the government without fear of punishment or reprisal. Guarantees of free speech, free press and free assembly mean absolutely nothing if the people live in fear of retaliation should they choose to speak their minds regarding their politicians.

Oppression comes in many shapes and sizes. It hides its evil motives in the pretences of supposed honourable acts all the while bullying the naysayer into silent submission with unspoken threats of retribution. However, let there be no doubt whatsoever that democracy requires, no demands, dissent.

Free political discussion and the right to disagree with those in political power are the cornerstone of a free country. Without the right to dissent there is no way for the people to unite in thought and purpose regarding the process that decides their lives and futures. When the people are free to discuss their feelings about the government, they have at their disposal the first platform necessary to accept or reject the government and even, if desired, replace the government.

Truly, a responsive government is simply a natural by-product of citizens who do not fear reprisal from disagreeing with their politicians. The will of the people should be the foremost concern of the government and when that will is ignored or denied, the people have a responsibility to voice their dissent and to expect changes in a timely manner.

Any element that creates a political climate that produces a fear in the people to speak their minds is anti-democratic and dictatorial. There are so many avenues by which a government can create such a climate. Some methods are more drastic than others, but the end result is always the same – silencing the voice of the people.

The more aggressive and less apologetic oppressive governments usually choose very public methods to make examples of one dissenter in an effort to curb the disapproving appetite in other would-be dissidents. These methods usually include such atrocities as shutting down a newspaper that has printed dissenting material, sending harassing messages via the media to warn its enemies and even murdering anyone who opposes the government. We have seen this type of behaviour in our dear Guyana 25 years ago when Dr. Walter Rodney was killed for voicing his dissent of the then administration.

Other less public, yet often just as sinister, methods include social ostracization, yanking of government contracts from businesses ran by political dissenters and, here in Guyana, total disregard for dissent originating from the race that is not in power. Disregarding the views of the “other” race is certainly one highly efficient technique to summarily dismiss a large amount of dissent while further perpetuating the racial division in our country - a division instigated and sustained by vitriolic politicians who would chip away at our democracy for a chance to sit in parliament.

So what is Guyana’s democratic temperature? To what degree do the citizens feel the freedom to voice their dissent? Happening upon a conversation here or there will show there is much political condemnation and the people will talk about it with their friends and acquaintances. However, there is also a noticeable undercurrent of fear that runs deep into the veins of the citizens. Whispers of dissatisfaction and low condemning murmurs consistently fill the streets, doorways and rum shops of our country and fear reigns in the place of freedom.

Perhaps this fear is a result of dreadful memories of what can happen when good men and women like Dr. Rodney speak their minds. Or maybe the fear stems from the idea that we may have a government that hires hit men to take care of its “problems.” Then again, it could be because we own a business that relies on contracts from the government and cannot afford to risk the loss of revenue in exchange for dissenting words. Sadly, the root of this underlying fear is probably all of the above – and more.

True, our newspapers are not being shut down like the papers in Iran were this past week for printing a dissenting letter. However, any element in our society that prevents dissent is a serious threat to our freedom. Even more, a society that does not actively facilitate opportunities for dissent is no patron of democracy. A country is not democratic simply because its constitution declares it to be so. There are innate principles that are foundational in the classification of being democratic – one of which is facilitation for the voice of dissent.

How does a country facilitate dissent? In today’s modern world, we have so many new avenues available for free discussion. There are Websites with forums formatted specifically for political discussion. There is also the radio, television and newspapers as a means for expressing dissent. Other avenues include providing town meetings, encouraging the formation of political activist groups and, if a situation requires drastic measures, a petition.

However, the most effectual means by which a country can facilitate dissent is to replace every unresponsive politician with one who better understands the role of a democratic leader. It really is that simple. Such politicians are not fit for the service of the people and should have no place in making decisions that impact the people if they cannot listen to the will of the people.

Further, any politician found to be making threats, even in the slightest degree, that would hamper a healthy climate of dissent, should also be replaced without delay. These leaders seek their own interest and power. They are dangerous and should not be trusted with the honour of running our country since most times this type of person will only run it into the ground and then blame it on someone else.

Beyond doubt, it is extremely difficult to overcome a fear of political reprisal when there is even a small nagging that one’s opposition might bring retribution to family, business or self. However, if the people of Guyana do not take the necessary steps to restore a healthy climate of free discussion to our country, then who will? Quite frankly my fellow compatriots, there is no one else.

With the same mouths we use to kiss our children and eat the sweet fruit of our land, we should be demanding the will of the people and declaring the freedom for political discussion. It is time to exchange our whispers for bellows and our doorways for podiums. I ask for a second time, if not us, then who? Once again, Guyana expectantly awaits your reply.