Opposition exposed by corruption debates

– out of their depth economically, but bent on stymieing the country’s progress

By Ron Cheong

All of society has a stake and a role in combating corruption. It is endemic in the developing world. And though generally much more contained in the developed world, the reach and ravage of corruption spawned in developed countries can be profound and transnational, as in the case of Halliburton to name a single well-known instance.
This does not imply that corruption in Guyana is acceptable. As the country moves forward – if it is to continue its remarkable progress from the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere behind Haiti in1992, to its low middle income classification currently, all levels of government, civil society, individuals, the media, private sector and political parties have important roles to play.
That task is being made all the more difficult by the political opposition, which the scheduled series of debates exposed to be more interested in creating confusion and disunity than involving themselves in the genuine and tough work of reining in corruption.

Literally handed an unprecedented opportunity on a platter to hold the government accountable and to meaningfully engage in playing a part in reducing corruption, the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) have once again demonstrated a lack of commitment to hard work towards the betterment of the country.
The APNU initially called for the debates, but sought subterfuge in flimsy excuses not to participate in them when the government called their bluff by agreeing to the debates. In hindsight, the AFC may have been well advised to do the same since their showing has been a complete embarrassment.
Under the light of scrutiny and direct responses, they quickly found their favourite smoke and mirrors tactics of innuendo, misdirection and planting logically inconsistent statements not just blunted, but eviscerated by panelists from the government, private sector and technical experts.
One telling moment came during the Cheddi Jagan International Airport expansion project debate. The AFC’s Gerhard Ramsaroop was actually caught red faced and blushing with embarrassment on camera when Minister Irfaan Ali cornered him on duplicity. For months, he and the AFC had been insinuating impropriety by labelling the project a “secret” deal. But during the debate, his allegations were now systematically being debunked on camera in real time. So he attempted to switch tactics to misdirection with a lengthy diatribe questioning the cost of sand. But in reaching to give pseudo-legitimacy to the sand ploy, he failed to connect the logical dots in his statement when he proclaimed, “… I read the contract and it says that the employer, which is the government, is supposed to supply the sand free of cost. Has this been costed out?” The opposition’s never ending duplicity aside, corruption is a burden to development and its effects on the community are debilitating.
It is systemic running the gamut from paying bribes demanded by petty administrators for processing paperwork or giving a “raise” to a traffic officer, to greasing the awarding of contracts with kickbacks to senior bureaucrats.
It results in higher prices paid by all, an uneven playing field, substandard work and the eventual belief that this is an inevitable natural part of the culture.
The attitude of the opposition and their spurious accusations siphons off energies, distracts focus from real corruption where it exists, and creates a disincentive to tackling this difficult challenge.
Notwithstanding this, the government has taken an important public step with these debates placing the issue squarely on the table and laying foundation planks of sensitisation and education.
The move adds to other initiatives like its Anti-Money Laundering Legislation and the Integrity Commission in regard to which the opposition has tried every possible excuse for delaying and noncompliance.
In looking for its causes, some say that corruption in its various forms just stems from human nature. But conditions in the developing world do provide fertile breeding ground. There is a general inverse relationship between increasing levels of development in a country and reductions in the incidence of corruption. Though there is some disagreement about which one is the chicken and which one is the egg, at some point the two become mutually reinforcing.
More development results in more better-paying jobs, less underemployment and more personal security which ultimately tips the risk reward equation pro-file towards an increasingly heavier negative bias against risking being found to be involved in corruption.
Projects like the Amaila Falls Hydro Project, Marriott Hotel and CJ International Airport expansion, Guyana’s housing programme and others, not to mention the health and education programmes, are strategic economic bridges to further development, and if history holds true, they will also lead to self-reinforcing reductions in corruption. This is supported by an OECD finding which states in part, “A reduction in corruption depends on economic development. It is thus for each country concerned to draw up its own strategy, by which it can then lead to a virtuous circle of development and good governance.
The opposition demonstrates a complete absence of this type of thinking and ignorance of the synergies and benefits generated by strategic plans and projects. They have done nothing so far but try to stymie this path, derail development projects and float spurious allegations of corruption, which they make no effort to corroborate when handed a public forum on the national stage. These actions to damage the investment climate and drive the country backward are a betrayal.
As Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh put it during the Marriott debate, “The opposition agenda must be seen for what it is. And it is regrettable that it is not an agenda driven by nationalist considerations. The political opposition in Guyana has been on a one way road to obstruct progress in Guyana.”
With or without a change in the uncooperative and divisive attitudes of the APNU and the AFC, the government has more work to do on the corruption front. The media, civil society, NGOs, other organisations, the private sector and individuals can help by lending their voices.