Parliamentary oversight of the monies given away by this gov’t are lacking
In the weeks preceding the March 2, 2020, elections several of us appeared on Globespan in New York, commending in debate the value of cash grants to Guyanese as the country prepared to gain substantial revenues from the oil industry. Our opponents, supporters of the PPPC, argued against this economic device maintaining that laziness and dependency would be encouraged among the beneficiaries. Charles Sugrim and Asquith Rose, present hosts on that useful platform counted among our interlocutors. We believed that not only were they wrong about thrashing these grants but also that a PPPC government would implement them for political gain.
Cash grants have, in fact, been given for various types of distress by the government. Let it be understood that we still hold the view that they have tangible social, economic, and psychological benefits. Our complaint, if not a citizen’s indictment, is against the unilateral and inconsistent way they are being deployed. The current government entered office as boisterous defenders of democracy in Guyana. Yet it has not allowed any independent oversight of these programs.
Recently Vice President Bharat Jagdeo announced that hundreds of wrongfully terminated sugar workers would receive $250,000 as compensation. Some, if not all of these workers, were given severance packages. Their adequacy has been questioned. What must also must be questioned is the right of the Vice President to give money to these workers. Who and what give him that authority? The mid-year report that sugar production was
only 29,650 tonnes, a 24.5% decline from last year, would seem to justify the belief of the previous administration that the sugar industry is mortally ill. There has been no parliamentary oversight of the monies given away. The same is true for Jagdeo’s initiative. All of the money available to this government or any future one belongs to the people of Guyana. The Executive President and his cabinet are perpetual servants of the people.
When a Vice President or a Minister decides to do with the people’s money what he thinks is best even if he believes he is correcting a wrong, he is usurping democracy. It’s this type of official behaviour that is sowing discontent. That seed though small may grow bigger and become unwieldy. Not every executive decision mandates consent and approval. It is however reasonable and sound to demand that every one that involves the use of the people’s money should be subject to proper review by the people’s representatives especially those who do not enjoy the reins of power. Democracy never began with elections and never actualized with the declaration of the winner. Meaningful structures and processes must follow.