By Kiana Wilburg
In elections, there will always be political bloodshed. Ahead of the September 1 poll, several politicians parted ways with the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU). The consensus among the dearly departed is that Aubrey Norton failed to make them feel included. He is also accused of leading the party to a place of intellectual inertia and pettiness.
Those who have made these accusations include former parliamentarians Jermaine Figueira, Amanza Walton-Desir, and Geeta Chandon-Edmond. While some members of the public believe that the loss of these politicians is a knee to the groin for Norton, the party leader boasts of being unfazed. Norton even said those who left are not heavyweights and would therefore have no impact on the party’s support base come E-Day.
Norton’s decision to discredit the contributions and influence of seasoned members has left many bewildered, especially in the case of Figueira, who he said did nothing for Linden, was incompetent, and simply taking up space.
Before providing further assessment, this author offers for comparison, the manner in which Alliance For Change (AFC) Leader, Nigel Hughes addressed the loss of three members to the APNU.
During an interview on Context, a show by veteran journalist, Enrico Woolford, Hughes was asked if he was hurt by their exit. He answered in the affirmative, adding, “I think a resignation of any long-standing person from any institution will affect the institution. Having said that, the resignations of Ms (Juretha) Fernandes, Mr. (Sherod) Duncan, and Mr (Deonarine) Ramsaroop, they were Members of Parliament.
“So clearly, the party reposed in them a significant degree of confidence to have them in Parliament. So the fact that they resigned, yes, it would affect us.”
What Hughes did is tantamount to gurgling salted water to address an itchy throat. He admitted there was a problem. At the very least, he provided a short but effective response which preserves public confidence in his ability to lead with empathy.
Some may deem Norton’s refusal to show his emotional cleavage was in keeping with what political generals do—show little to no weakness which could be exploited by one’s opponent. Machiavelli in his book, The Prince, makes a case for this. In that masterpiece, he discusses the importance of appearances in maintaining authority. The great diplomat and philosopher recognized that people judge rulers based on their outward behaviour rather than their inner motives. As such, emotions such as mercy have to be exercised with great caution.
This author wishes to emphasize that it is also Machiavelli who advises leaders to maintain a balance when seeking to manipulate the public’s perception of their image, advising that their ruthlessness is not exercised to the extent that they could alienate and demoralize their soldiers.
Machiavelli’s teachings, and even lessons from our own domestic politics, are instructive in showing the high price leaders pay when pretend strength does more harm than good.
Even if you want to give Norton a pass on his handling of internal party politics, his plan for spending the nation’s oil money leaves one neck deep in concern. Last week, the Presidential Candidate and his Prime Ministerial running mate, Juretha Fernandes provided insight on how they would leverage oil revenues for development. A number of lofty promises were made for payouts such as a 35 percent increase to public servants, a $100,000 monthly payout for pensioners and the increase of the Income Tax Threshold from $130,000 to $400,000. There is also talk of distriubution $1 million to every poor household. This author will only address, in brief, the implications of the threshold increase.
What happens when the vendors, the taxi drivers, the minibus drivers, and the supermarkets become aware that consumers have more money to spend? Prices increase ! Why would Tom Jones continue to sell his mangoes at $100 for one when he knows Kiana has more money to spend ? The same logic would be followed by those suppliers and service providers who benefit from the bulk of expenditure by low and middle income households.
Norton’s proposal to increase the Income Tax Threshold, in the absence of other measures to stabilize prices and increase production, would therefore be akin to throwing gasoline on inflation.
The reports published by Inter-American Development Bank provide critical insight on the grave economic consequences that ensue for nations fixated on cash transfers. In a 2018 report which profiled the experience of the Trinidad and Tobago, it was explained that authorities implemented a number of reckless and unsustainable cash transfer policies.
Guyanese policymakers were cautioned to “avoid rapidly escalating handouts and subsidies, except to the most vulnerable.” The report said these types of expenditures stimulate demand and de-incentivize work. “The state must create an enabling environment to encourage employment and other opportunities in the economy while protecting the poor and most vulnerable,” the report said.
It added, “The Guyanese government should not cut capital expenditures in favour of transfers and subsidies. As the economy grows, capital expenditures spur production.”
Overall, the report makes the case that simply increasing transfers and subsidies could lead to unsustainable expectations and does not automatically redound to reduced poverty levels.
In the weeks leading up to E-Day, the challenge before Norton entails proving his brand of leadership is what the Oil Republic requires to ensure social and economic stability. The path to tipping the scales cannot be littered with promises that act as cognitive smokescreens, temporarily distracting critical thinking.
