Dependence & Independence

Independence Day” reminds us that we were supposedly once ‘dependent’ – on Britain, in this instance – and that on May 26, 1966 we became ‘independent’. One way to gauge our progress on the ‘independent’ front might be to cast a glance back at the ‘dependent’ relationship. What strikes one immediately is the chutzpah of the imperial power that enslaved and indentured us to labour and produce goods for their consumption, to then define us as ‘dependent’.

We were ‘dependent’, the ‘mother country’ informed us, because we were simple, benighted heathens and savages who were to be tutored into their civilised ways. This was the heavy ‘white man’s burden’ that they had to bear: the exploitation and extraction of primary products for their consumption was merely coincidental. But this way of looking at our status is rather negative: it tells us what we are ‘independent from’. But we believe that it is even more relevant to ask; ‘what are we independent to do?’

This distinction is akin to the one between ‘emancipation’ and ‘freedom’ at the more personal level. The first focused on the status of slaves being freed from bondage, but the latter incorporated the question to the freedmen of being ‘free to do what?’ We might be too far removed in time to alter our response to this question today but the one posed on ‘independence’ is certainly most relevant, just 46 years after the event.

It is rather intriguing that this question was heavily debated at the time of independence. Our leaders took us on a heady path to give meaning to our independence but today we seem to have subsided into a truculent dissatisfaction with our status, with no clear idea of what to do about it. Back then there was a clear acceptance of two propositions for our ‘dependent’ status which we had redefined as ‘underdevelopment’ – a conscious crippling of our national capabilities by the imperial power.

The first proposition was the interconnectedness of the global political, economic and cultural relations. Listening to the opposition ranting and raving about the government’s stewardship of the ship of state, it is clear they are completely oblivious to the new global realities in which we are interpolated. Let us look, for instance, at the funding for the proposed rehabilitation and expansion of the CBJ International Airport. The reality is that the western powers that have traditionally funded our development projects are on the financial ropes.

China has over US$1 trillion in its foreign reserves that it will use to win friends and influence countries around the world. It has funded projects from The Bahamas to Suriname among the members of Caricom. It has done the same all across Latin America and Africa. But listening to the opposition it would appear that the Chinese dragon has been lurking behind a tree for years to waylay poor Guyana. The opposition should be prepared to accept that an increasing amount of project funding will come from China. Not so incidentally we hope that they have taken cognisance of the recent downgrade of the Caribbean Development Bank by Moody’s. Borrowing costs from the CDB will go up.

The second, and related, proposition that was accepted by our founding fathers and mothers was that we must have a clear national strategy for development. After the New International Economic Order (NIEO) launched after Bandung floundered in the face of the onslaught by opposed global forces, the Breton Woods institutions re-imposed the will of their sponsors through the Washington Consensus regime. Any chance of an indigenous path of development was stymied.

But the PPP government has made us independent of that straight jacket. The opposition is merely cherry picking initiatives of the government for which to slash funding. Where is the method behind the madness? If we are to be ‘independent’ in a positive sense, we need clarity as to where we are headed.