OUR VILLAGES
There has been much debate recently about the call for fertilizing monies to be ploughed into the seemingly infertile fields of Buxton to stimulate stability and growth. Investment or Ransom? This debate raises an interesting issue as to whether the approach to Buxton should be an isolated one, or part of a larger strategy to address growing discontent and displacement within most villages in Guyana. In my considered opinion, the PNCR’s reiteration of a call for monies to be invested in Buxton is welcome, but the Party should have gone further in articulating its vision more expansively in terms not only of a few villages on the East Coast of Demerara, but for all villages in Guyana. Since the call for the injection of capital into Buxton was made by former President Hoyte, much has changed and therefore the call for money to be targeted at one village in 2005 whilst others such as Tuschen and Mocha are in the throes of crisis and confusion, is likely to be viewed with skepticism. Simply put, the debate has to be moved beyond the boundaries of Buxton.
The narrowing of the call to just one village and a few contiguous others has provided the government and its dwindling number of defenders an opportunity to cry foul. Had the argument been pitched in wider terms then this response about a ransom would have dissolved into a fizzle. The evolution of the village system from the halcyon days of sugar to the depressed conditions existing today is at the core of many of the difficulties we face. Poverty in Guyana is at its worst in rural communities and it is therefore a surprise to most persons that there is no targeted programme to address rural poverty in view of recent Caribbean Development Bank and World Bank reports. A relatively recent World Bank report sums up the grim situation thus: “The majority of Guyana’s poor (estimated at 43% of the population) live in rural areas. The rural poor are self employed in agriculture or work as agricultural labourers…Across ethnic groups, the incidence of poverty is highest for the Amerindian population, although it is still significant among the Afro-Guyanese, Indo-Guyanese, and racially mixed households.” This report speaks to the fact that people in rural communities, across the ethnic spectrum, are suffering. Therefore for a government to refuse to address the plight of rural poverty must therefore be seen as a refusal to govern fairly and effectively, or perhaps even as an attempt to court danger and disaster.
The government’s poverty reduction strategy fails to address the problem holistically but prefers instead to deal with specific areas such as Regions 1, 8, 9, and 10 through “Special Intervention Strategies”. No doubt these areas were properly identified as being deserving of assistance but the question as to what general programme there is in place for the other villages and communities remains unanswered. Ignoring the wider issue of pervasive poverty whilst building a cricket stadium worth USD$25,000,000 and investing in a sugar factory in light of the European Union’s butchery of the sugar prices leaves one to wonder whether there is any worthy intention to bring relief to the suffering masses. Knowing that things are disintegrating at a fast rate, the government must say what plans are in place to counter the dislocation that these EU cuts are going to have.
One needs to understand what is happening within the villages that is leading to disintegration and ultimately, to a breakdown of law and order. This understanding can only be gleaned if those in charge of formulating policy and strategy are prepared to find out from those affected, what the source of their dissatisfaction and distress is. This is not to say that law and order must not be maintained but this can never be achieved unless and until the causes of the problem are identified, studied, and worked upon until there is a break-through. In the minds of many, only criminals reside in these villages as painfully described in a recently published letter by T.King “No pig rearing or chicken farm or any other project will be of interest to anyone with a criminal mind” The obscene thesis of Mr. King and company being, that giving money to villages like Buxton for investment is like casting pearls before swine. This statement I believe encapsulates the disgustingly simplistic approach being adopted to refuse a plan to inject money in villages throughout Guyana. What we have is the chicken and the egg scenario playing out as to which came first: the criminal mind, or the lack of opportunities and equality which led to the criminal mind.
I hold the view that in a regularly organized state, no village, town or community can hold itself above the authority of the state. To this end crime especially if tending towards insurgency in any village must be suppressed. However, from a national security point of view, the approaches to dealing with internal conflict situations must be comprehensive and not be the usual ham-fisted approach of fighting fire with fire only. One needs to examine the smallest details which have grown into the larger problem. As an aside, the point must be emphasised that the recently unveiled and long overdue National Drug Control Strategy is destined to fail if the law enforcement agencies remain incapable of maintaining a dozen traffic lights in the city. (I will return to this at a later date).
This is the harsh reality and therefore the solution lies not in ignoring the obvious or becoming confrontational. These eruptions and strange events in the villages are but symptoms of a wider problem. What is required is a comprehensive approach that firstly recognizes the village as the kernel of life in Guyana extending outwards to the towns and Regions. In this regard, the due and proper functioning of villages must be made a priority. Villages must be self-sustaining from the socio-economic to the political standpoint. Education and religious organizations are in my opinion also key to the long term viability of the village movement. Residents of villages must feel a deep sense of belonging and ownership in their villages and in this regard, the issue of land reform which includes the distribution, use and occupation of lands, and also the issues of ownership of lands by indigenous peoples, “children property”, and ancestral lands must be addressed. Some of these concepts may be unfamiliar terms in English or Roman-Dutch Law but in Guyana, they are a part of the social fabric that must be accepted and legislated for to give effect to their legitimacy and protection. The failure to grapple with these delicate issues has led to hastening of the failure of the village system. The ongoing discussions on Local Government Reform in themselves will be insufficient if they do not embrace a parallel process which addresses the root causes of the withering away of the village culture and community spirit which we once celebrated.
We just don’t know enough as to what is taking place in the villages whether they are Buxton, No. 47 Corentyne, or Karasabi. The little we know is that in Berbice for example, entire villages are being wiped out by the plague of migration with suicide also exacting a heavy toll. On the East Coast and particularly within villages occupied by Afro-Guyanese, the decay is taking place because of the loss and lack of opportunities in some villages, whilst in others such as Annandale and Coldingen, the terror of crime has left severe dislocation. With the inevitable closure of the Demerara sugar estates, this problem is likely to increase in the near term. In hinterland communities, disease, joblessness and hopelessness have decimated already weakened village structures. Many studies have been done against a background of poverty reduction but insufficient attention is being paid to the concomitant issues of the dwindling flame of the once vibrant village culture; and the stereotyping of residents as criminals or second-class workers.
At present, we have a Ministry of Local Government whose primary function appears to be establishing Interim Management Committees but there is no publicly known programme for villages in general and specific villages such as Buxton in particular.
There must therefore be a comprehensive programme to address the resuscitation of the village system in Guyana. We have to return to the basics. It is therefore incumbent on this government and every successive government to have a deliberate programme to ensure the viability of the village system. Prevention is always better than cure and therefore it is being argued that the village as the seminal unit of socio-political life in Guyana must be treated with care and be made whole and viable before the outer rings of the state comprising the Regions and the Government and Parliament can function effectively.
The ad hoc approach of doling out lotto funds money at campaign meetings is no solution for dealing with serious and far-reaching problems afflicting the heart of the Guyana being. No one village is alike but there is a common thread running through most and this can be identified as a lack of opportunities within these villages. What the people in the villages desire most is to be empowered and to become self-reliant. It is time for a change.
RGCT
June, 2005
Comments are closed