Dr. Persaud seems to be acting as a spokesman for someone or an entity
Space will not permit to address everything in Dr. Randolph Persaud’s letter. Certainly, we have fundamental disagreements. Regarding foreign investments, please go back to “The West on Trial” where Dr. Cheddi Jagan described the ‘parasitic’ nature of the foreign investors. Alcan, Demba, Reynolds, Bookers were the main movers in colonial times; later Barama and Omai under the PNC regime. These latter investments were examined in an article twenty-two years ago: “Those Spinning Wheels and Deals in Guyana”, (http://www.guyanajournal.com/Deals_gg .html); a quick search will find this – they are not “sweeping claim” as suggested by Dr. Persaud.
In colonial times B.G. stood not for British Guiana, but for Bookers Guiana. Such was the foothold of Bookers. Of course, people were employed; otherwise, who would have done the back-breaking work? But at what cost! The workers were subjugated and exploited, not for “significant foreign exchange to Guyana” but to fill the coffers of companies like Bookers. Sugar workers lived in logies in conditions not unlike a pig sty. They would pee and poop anywhere, in trenches where they also washed clothes and kitchen utensils, and bathed. They were disease ridden and suffered from protein energy malnutrition. And when they protested, they were severely punished, and killed (as with the Enmore Martyrs, which was the springboard for Jagan’s solemn promise and his gravitation into politics).
Those were not glorious days! Seems to me that Dr. Persaud is acting as a spokesman… for someone or entity. IMF and World Bank are not necessarily enablers for poor developing countries.
They come with a heavy price, meaning structural adjustments where services for the “small man (can never) be (for) the real man”. I am perplexed by Persaud’s contention of my “fears” of being “locked” in “1970s ideology” of “economic nationalism vis-a-vis foreign capital…” What I am concerned about is the path that Guyana is taking, that can only lead to dystopic ruin of the people and the environment.
As a well accredited professor, Dr. Persaud should be open to alternative ways of development that are people-oriented, not just for the 1%. It is a stinking obscenity that in the midst of extreme wealth of billionaires and oligarchs, and huge companies and conglomerates, there is concomitant extreme poverty among the majority population. The prevailing system allows this and propagates it. I suggest reading not only prescribed university texts, but also works of Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Piketty, Amartya Sen, Jeffrey Sachs and such. We should not only think in terms of FDI and GDP, but also of HDI and GNI. I presume that this would stifle Dr. Persaud’s foundational philosophy. He favours Big Oil as do many others who are in my view misguided. Is Dr. Persaud dancing to the tune of Jagdeo’s (and the PPP) orchestra? I surmise thus.
Recall that Bharrat Jagdeo addressed (2005) the Permanent Council of the OAS when he declared, “We have been faithfully implementing the prescriptions of the neo-liberal model: privatization, trade and financial sector liberalization and deregulation.” Mouth open, story jump out. It is no surprise that Jagdeo looks like the captain of the ship named Big Oil. Dr. Persaud speaks of “capital inflows” but importantly forgets to mention excessive profit outflows. Big oil has never benefitted the small countries. Just do a little tinkering on the internet to see the degree of poverty of the overwhelming majority of people in oil producing African and Middle Eastern countries for example. The bottom-line is Persaud and the PPP favours political and economic consanguinity with the mantra of neoliberalism, an ideology embracing a philosophy of ‘profit at all costs.
Deliberately or benignly, neoliberalism encourages excessive competition, lust and greed, and corruption. It is faceless and does not see faces. It is “market” driven. It uses wealth to buy the minds of people, thus brainwashing all of us to do its bidding, even though harmful to us. A fair understanding and insight of such cognitive dissonance may be gleaned in the article: “A Brief History of Consumer Culture”
(https://getpocket.com/explore/item/abrief-history-of-consumer-culture). The neo-liberal system is restrictive and constrictive – “the mouth is muzzled by the food it eats to live”. One is not really “free” in the “market” place. It is not happenstance, but a deliberate planned ideology initiated by Hayek in the late 1930s.
It is time to wake up and smell the coffee. To adopt a holistic approach. To have development with a human face. We must all re-orient our thinking for the goodness of humanity and the planet. Cogito ergo sum. Think out of the box.
Sincerely,
Gary Girdhari