Do we have an Opposition or a “Chopposition”?

Logic, reasoning and national development seem to be alien concepts to the political opposition in our country and this belief has been reinforced once again as even before the completion of our 2014 national budget they have signalled their intention to institute cuts which, has been the practice since their acquisition of combined one-seat majority “toy.” It is clear therefore that the utmost priority of the opposition is the chopping of the national budget to stall progress and therefore it would be most appropriate to rename them “Chopposition.”

It puzzles and befuddles the mind how an opposition has been accusing the government of not creating employment opportunities for our youths and in the same breath is strenuously working towards stalling projects which would be creating employment and also advancing the socio-economic advancement of our country where a sound macro-economic framework has been laid for an economic take-off. There seems to be a common misconception in the ‘developing world’ that the role of opposition parties, as the name suggests, is limited to opposing everything or anything an incumbent government proposes or suggests. But contrary to this, in emerging democracies around the world, the opposition have been playing an increasingly important roles in shaping policy agendas, conducting civic education, and fighting corruption, singly or in alliance with other entities. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has projected that Guyana’s annual Gross Domestic Product will grow from 3.7% in 2012 to 5.5% in 2013, even as the executive board of that organisation commended Guyana’s sound economic management and strong economic performance. This was revealed in the Public Information Notice posted by the IMF on November 29. IMF executive directors have commended government’s policies which have supported the country’s macroeconomic resilience and sustained growth. Nonetheless, as the directors noted, policy challenges remain for the near and the medium-term, they have suggested that Government should persevere with fiscal consolidation and structural reforms to strengthen debt sustainability and make growth more inclusive. The directors looked forward to measures to boost the efficiency of public enterprises and steps to ensure that the Amaila Falls Hydropower project is economically viable. They recommended careful consideration of the risks and contingent liabilities arising from that project, and welcomed government’s efforts to pursue international best practices in its management. They also agreed that monetary policy conduct must remain alert to price developments and the emergence of excessive leverage in the financial system. Tightening the monetary stance in the period ahead could rein in credit growth and safeguard foreign exchange reserves, they warned. The IMF directors also took note of the staff assessment that, although Guyana has benefited from a relatively stable exchange rate, greater exchange rate flexibility over the medium-term could cushion external shocks as commodity exports expand. A few directors, however, were not persuaded that greater exchange rate flexibility would be desirable. While welcoming the continued improvements in financial sector soundness and oversight, the directors observed that Guyana’s banks remain liquid and prudential indicators have been strengthening. Against this backdrop, the IMF has encouraged government to act pre-emptively should rapid credit growth undermine asset quality and inflation risks mount.

They supported ongoing efforts to modernise the traditional sectors, notably sugarcane cultivation, and improve the business climate and also recommended putting in place an effective and transparent fiscal framework for the extractive industries, including the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund and adherence to the Extractive Industries’ Transparency Initiative. So what is clear is that the opposition is immersed in a strategy to stall progress at any cost, even at the expense of the good of the nation. Their political interests are paramount to that of the nation. How else could their illogical and irrational actions be explained? While circumstances today have changed from the 1960s, the opposition or more appropriately the “Chopposition” has remained in the modus operandi of that era, which was aimed at grabbing political power at any cost.