Opinion
- Editorial
Selwyn Ryan:
Simultaneous development
There
has been a chorus of criticism and complaint about
the Government's current development strategy. The
basic complaint is that it is incoherent, emphasises
mega-structures, ignores the need for meaningful
and interactive democratic input, project prioritisation,
environmental and resource sustainability and operational
viability. The strategy is also blamed for dramatically
increasing levels of inflation which in turn has
a knock-on effect on the price of home rentals and
ownership, food, and private sector construction
activity. It is also blamed for the spread of "Dutch
disease" and the creation of new forms of poverty,
especially within the newly emerging middle class.
In short, instead of alleviating poverty and underdevelopment,
the current strategy is said to be causing both.
Complaints
have been coming from the various Leaders of the
Opposition, the Chambers of Commerce, the trade
unions, the JCC, the Central Bank, civil society
groups and professional organisations. Many average
citizens have also added the sound of their voice
and their marching feet to the protest movement.
Some of the projects are seen as being driven by
personal and political ambition rather than by genuine
public need.
The
projects which have attracted the greatest heat
are the Tarouba Sporting Complex (which I am told
was forced on the Government because of commitments
in respect of the Cricket World Cup), the monorail,
the East Port of Spain Housing Project and the aluminium
smelters, particularly the one in Point Fortin which
many regard as being without any justification whatever.
The Government has turned a deaf ear to the protests
and insists that all the projects are necessary,
and must go on simultaneously.
As
one reflects on the debate, one can't help but notice
the extent to which we are covering ground that
we have trod on before. Manning's stance reminds
me very much of that taken by Eric Williams, who
in the wake of the OPEC revolution, decided that
he had an appointment with destiny, and that he
had to keep check on the time since the "messiah"
could not afford to be late twice. Williams believed
that Trinidad's development deficit could be reduced
considerably in ten years. As he said, "if
ever an opportunity was presented to a country to
make significant strides in a decade, the decade
would be the eighties, and the country would be
Trinidad and Tobago."
Williams
thus rejected the argument that Trinidad and Tobago
should bank its petro-dollar windfall abroad, export
the gas and oil, and earn revenue and interest on
them rather than build a steel mill and a fertiliser
plant, facilities which in his view defined developed
country status. As he fumed, "I have heard
the criticisms - why build a steel mill? Why build
another fertiliser plant? Use that money to build
a new airport and put up some new buildings for
this or that. And when the money runs out, what
will we have?
We then have to advertise for tourists to come to
our beautiful country and enjoy our facilities,
and the first real scare, real or otherwise, of
yellow fever, that is the end of the tourist!"
Williams
also quarrelled with those who felt that the Government
should save more of the revenue from the windfall
rather than spend it as if it were going out of
style. One recalls here Manley's comment about the
money exiting from the body politic as if it were
a dose of salts. Williams' response was that the
money was being used to respond to the pent-up needs
of the population. In any case, retreat was politically
impossible. One had an election to fight in 1981!
One also has an election to fight in 2007 or 2008!
Despite
his insistence that pent-up needs must be met, Williams
told the population that they should not realistically
expect instant solutions to the nation's social
and infrastructural deficits or blame the PNM alone
for the persistence of these deficits. "The
enemy will highlight the deficiencies of our infrastructure,
but you must not accept that instant solutions are
possible, or that unless they are provided, we would
have failed."
Williams
argued that developed countries had "tremendous
natural resources, including populations based largely
on migrants who had brought money, skills and motivation
to develop their new-found land, whereas our brain
drain has taken from us some of the expertise and
skill particularly needed at this time of development.
We cannot be Toronto or Miami or Los Angeles in
a matter of years. Indeed, we need to debate whether
we want to be any of these places." We still
need to have such a debate.
Interestingly, in his bid to overcome Trinidad's
development deficits in one big leap, Williams experimented
with a novel "Government to Government"
model which he believed would make foreign technological
and management expertise available under umbrella
arrangements with foreign governments. The foreign
government would sponsor the implementation of particular
projects, an arrangement which would circumvent
the time-wasting and price-gouging that characterised
the public procurement process.
For
a variety of reasons which cannot be dealt with
here, that option was a spectacular failure that
had to be abandoned following Williams' death. As
Chambers ruefully acknowledged, "what emerges
with utmost clarity from the experience of the 70s
is that development is a complex and long-term process
involving among other things, sacrifice, discipline
and commitment to the national good. Believe me,
there are no shortcuts." The foregoing was
intended to make clear that what is being said and
done today in the name of development has been said
and done before, and that we do not have to speculate
about outcomes. What we need to do is revisit and
hopefully learn more from our experiences and from
the mistakes of the 70s.
Trinidad
Express
Sunday, August 20th 2006
Copyright
© 2006 The
Trinidad Express.
All rights reserved
