By Citizen X
“If it looks like cow dung, smells like cow dung and behaves like cow dung, then it must be…” Dior Savage?
That, in a nutshell, resembles the increasingly creative attempts to spin comments made by President Irfaan Ali in response to questions about mitigating the high cost-of-living here in Guyana.
To be fair, the President did not explicitly say to Guyanese: “Stop eating out.” He certainly did not say, “Stop shopping at supermarkets,” nor did he say, “Change your eating habits.”
Those specific syntactic constructions appear nowhere in the transcript, alleging otherwise would be dishonest. Equally dishonest, however, would be pretending that people are criticising something the President never implied.
For context, President Ali was asked a straightforward question about the rising cost of living and what more government could do to help. In response, he spoke about changing eating habits. He spoke about more people shopping at supermarkets. He spoke about more people eating at restaurants. He spoke about people cooking less at home. That is not something that “critics” invented. It is what he said. Yet Guyanese are now being asked to believe that because he never plainly stated that some amount of the high cost-of-living is self-inflicted, any criticism of his comments amounts to distortion and mischief.
That is utter Dior Sauvage!
Semantics would matter in a court of law, but politics does not require a linguistic analysis to prove meaning by examining how words appear in a particular order.
People, including politicians, are assessed not only by their words but by the context in which they are uttered. The argument being made was obvious: Guyanese are experiencing a high cost-of-living because they eat out too much and shop excessively at the expensive supermarkets.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the President’s observation. But if his position is that these habits are impacting cost-of-living, then he should own it and the keyboard warriors must accept it. They would instead have us believe that anything not explicitly stated should never be inferred. If that were true, politics itself would seize to exist.
It does not take a genius to know that a family that frequently eats at restaurants would generally spend more on food. Similarly, if more people purchase produce through supermarkets instead of directly from farmers, prices may be higher because supermarkets have overheads and workers to pay.
That is precisely why when people ask what the government intends to do about the high cost-of-living, they are at least expecting to hear something about the government’s views on price control, wages, relief measures, markets, transportation, taxation, supply chains or competition.
One would at least expect that if supermarkets are charging excessive markups, that some assurance would be given to examine those add-ons. Similarly, if middlemen are deliberately inflating prices, then that should be examined. Considerations should also be made to explore why farmers resort to middlemen rather than taking their produce from the farms to the markets themselves.
One can also argue that Guyanese who frequently eat at restaurants and shop at supermarkets may simply be the people who can afford to do so. There are still many fathers and mothers who are earning minimum wage, renting a house, paying bills, raising several children and hardly eating out. Such types of Guyanese are still feeling the squeeze. What exactly are they supposed to do with the President’s comments, when the prices of produce at the traditional markets are also exorbitantly high? This is still the case despite the government distributing fertiliser assistance among others intiatives to farmers. Why these benefits are not being passed on to the consumer is the question that should be asked.
Further, if the preference for supermarkets and restaurants is now considered an issue, then why are more and more of them being allowed to spring up across communities at such a remarkable pace and right under the very nose of the Government?
Equal allowances are not given for the establishment of more and frequent farmers’ markets, additional dedicated community spaces for gardens, assistance with the transportation of produce from farms to markets or more incentives that could make locally grown food more affordable and accessible.
The state of existing market facilities can also be one reason why people are shopping more at supermarkets. Most existing markets are prone to flooding, rodent infestation and piling up of garbage. Accessibility is another issue. There is no parking. Shoppers have to walk long distances to access these facilities.
These are important things to consider because the reality is that consumers respond or adapt to the environment around them.
We must take note of the many Chinese-owned and operated supermarkets found within residential areas, making it increasingly difficult for Mom-and-Pop shops, local food stands and village “greens stands” to compete.
When a local village shop goes belly-up, a Chinese-owned supermarket takes its place. Or maybe it is the other way around, local small shops of closing because the Chinese made it hard to compete. Prices start out low and gradually increase as these entities gain the monopoly. These are common takeover tactics that florish given the right environment. Yet, people shop there. Why? Convenience.
For example, the average consumer in Goed Fortuin would not pass the five Chinese supermarkets along the public road to go all the way to the Vreed-en-Hoop Junction to buy a pineapple even though it is cheaper there.
They would rather pay an additional $200 for that same product or an alternative at the supermarket literally a stonethrow from their homes just to save time.
Eating out may be actually cheaper than cooking a meal from scratch, especially for smaller families. But many are not just going out to eat. Some may also be going to enjoy the sites, the recreational facilties being constructed across the country, a drive along the beautiful new highways, the Bharrat Jagdeo Demerara River Bridge, etcetera.
People may also be intrigued by the many newer food options being introduced by the influx of foreigners to Guyana. This phenomenon is not unique to Guyana. Several years ago, whether by policy or perhaps eyeing more opportunities here, many Chinese restauranteurs in Suriname came to Guyana. They brought their Surinamese-style Chinese food flavours here. Berbicians, especially those closer to the border, loved it.
This is an example of how an influx of foreigners can influence the local culture of a country, including its flavour. More Guyanese are gravitating to these new experiences. This is evident on Sheriff Street where patrons flock stands run by Venezuelans and Cubans to buy food.
This is precisely why it is difficult to discuss changing consumer habits without also discussing the conditions that lead to them in the first place. Conditions approved by government.
That is why the semantic defence misses the larger point.
The president simply pointing out citizen’s bad eating and shopping habits within the context of responding to a question of what the government plans to do about high cost-of-living should be enough for his comments to invite scrutiny.
He does not need to utter the exact words, “Change your eating and shopping habits”.
We have sense to know that if something looks like cow dung, smells like cow dung and acts like cowdung, it can never be one of the greatest colognes ever created.
