By Abena Rockcliffe
Much is going on in the public sphere. This author was tempted to share thoughts on various topics: the many angles of the GECOM saga, influencers joking about people with disabilities, and the almost daily exposure of “corruption” from the newly minted anti-corruption guru, even as he fights charges rooted in the very scourge he so despises. Guyanese love irony.
This author decided to focus on the highly anticipated week ahead. Come Monday, Guyana will witness the very first round of budget debates in the life of the 13th Parliament. In this author’s estimation, this is the first real test for the new opposition.
Last year, this author wrote an editorial on the performance of the APNU+AFC opposition. It was essentially a review featuring extreme disappointment.
Last years’ budget debate and deliberation were poor. The presentations offered by many of the Members of Parliament (MP) were incoherent and lacked a common thread. It appeared as if many of the opposing Members of Parliament (MP) were speaking on personal conviction and understanding rather than a unified position taken by the opposition, or even the parties that made up the opposition. For instance, one person supported intervention for sugar while another said sugar was dead, not worthy of support. Further, members were hardly in the dome and sufficient scrutiny for the line items was lacking.
This author holds some reservation in identifying the person of reference for what a reasonable debate presentation should look like. The discomfort has to do with the fact that it was rumored since then that he was a “traitor”. As things turned out, he indeed switched sides.
Jermaine Figueira/ Figgy’s style of presentation was indeed appreciated. He wasn’t one of those who tried to paint Budget 2025 as all bad. He acknowledged some of the good measures but also pointed out what was lacking. He even made suggestions of projects/initiatives, particularly for Region 10.
The fact that he turned out to be team PPP may represent a step back for that sort of approach. Opposition MPs may fear that acknowledging any good in the budget may cause them to be painted PPP.
But for those serious about healthy politics, politics that could eventually lead to real change for the people, it is worth the effort. This author believes in this principle.
Recently, attention was drawn to a Facebook post which suggested that this author is on Azruddin Mohamed’s payroll. At first, it was dismissed as folly, not even worthy of attention. But then this author realized it is something actually taken seriously, even by people who are acquainted, some even considered friends. All of sudden, people are referring to Mohamed as “your friend”. This triggered deep introspection. Has Guyana Standard been coddling Mohamed? Has the publication been carrying his message in a manner that may lend credence to this assumption? The obvious, off the bat answer, was no. Further steps were taken. There was a careful review of content going all the way back to last September; just to be thorough. Still, the answer is no. But it was also noted that Guyana Standard has not positioned itself as anti-Mohamed as was suggested by his sister Hanna a few months back.
The perception of compromise could have only been drawn because Guyana Standard carried Mohamed’s official responses to topical issues. Further, Guyana Standard published the views of those who believed that deliberate efforts to derail the will of the people were afoot in not swearing in Mohamed as opposition leader.
When such fundamental coverage can fuel a perception that “large sums” are collected, journalism is being pushed in a corner. One would assume those sums referenced should be “large” enough to compensate for the risk associated with collecting money from someone facing extradition over financial-related crimes. This author should not be struggling to reach deadlines for investments; as is currently the case.
In such a situation, one considers, should one desist covering the opposition leader over fear of being accused of collecting large sums? Or is journalism more important?
To the 29 who sit on the opposition benches, do not feel as if you have to demonize the budget and spew a message of pure gloom and doom. Stay true to your cause if it is indeed noble. When you rise to add to the debate, let your contribution be of substance. Let the people know the good, the bad and the ugly.
When it is time for consideration of the estimates, please, please do better than your predecessors, ask the necessary questions so that government officials can respond revealing either gloom, or hope.
