GUYANESE were optimistic at the start of the budget debate two Fridays ago. They were expecting the opposition, PNC/R-led APNU+AFC to deliver factual, sound, feisty, fiery, and realistic debates in the National Assembly. They were hoping that the opposition would voice their various issues with government policies and seek clarification of how the government proposes to spend the huge sums allocated in the 1.38T budget.
Added to this, the public had expected a reasonable and healthy dose of opposition criticisms flowing from the faults with the budget or missed priorities.
Also, they were looking forward to Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton’s presentation, which many felt could help them finally decide on whether to support this current PPP/C party and government at the upcoming elections, which is expected to be held by November, 2025. He was expected too, to display his so-called ‘extensive knowledge and intellect’ when it comes to issues that the budgetary measures would be geared to dealing with, such as poverty, crime and security, health, education, social welfare and economics.
Additionally, Congress Place, their public commentators, social media talk show hosts and social media influencers created a big hype around Norton and his parliamentarians that would put pressure on the government, taking the fight directly to them in the National Assembly. The PNC-APNU+AFC have, over the last two weeks, teamed up with AFC Leader Nigel Hughes, to heavily criticise the budget.
Firstly, the combined APNU+AFC opposition performed surprisingly poorly. It was a set of fluff and no substance. It was as if every opposition parliamentarian wanted to get the same message across that the government was allegedly corrupt, and the PPP/C would pay because this was an election year.
Every presentation was about issues that the opposition had,and not necessarily what was in front of them for a little over a week – the measures and the budget. They were busy having a budget debate without the budget?
There were very low-energy presentations delivered by some parliamentarians whose names are not worth mentioning. Notable budget presentations were delivered, however, by Deputy Speaker Asha Kissoon, whom the opposition abandoned, Christopher Jones, Jermaine Figueira, Geeta Chandan-Edmond, and even, surprisingly, Annette Ferguson.
The spirited and loud debates were delivered by Ganesh Mahipaul, Sherod Duncan, Shurwayne Holder, Volda Lawrence, David Patterson, Catherine Hughes, Vinceroy Jordan, Coretta Mc Donald and Nima Flue-Bess. These seemed to be aimed at rewriting history.
Hughes, Lawerence and Patterson’s presentations appear to be an attempt at political revisionism. Not only were they seemingly illogical, but there were many untruths told to the public and in the hallowed House. It’s quite unfortunate that the opposition MPs did not focus on what the government said they would address and what the Guyanese public wanted. There were some good jabs thrown at the PPP/C party, but the continued criticisms of the budget missed the mark.
It seems as though the APNU+AFC focused on bringing a slew of catchy and no-doubt juicy soundbites, as opposed to presenting facts and truths. One, many of the opposition MPs fell below the public’s expectations and far below the established parliamentary standards set during previous debates in the National Assembly.
Bring the wisdom, spirits, and personalities of the late Deborah Backer, Winston Murray and Dr Faith Harding. The quality of debate of the opposition parliamentarians has gone to the ‘dogs,’ with them hurling personal jabs at the government ministers instead of presenting the hard and cold facts.
When the parliamentary opposition is doing so poorly and is clutching at straws, it usually means the government’s fiscal policies and plans are strong and withstanding the ridicule as well as the barrage of criticisms.
Secondly, Norton delivered a schoolboy budget debate on Thursday, backed by staged thumping on the desks to kerfuffle anyone listening as to the state of opposition unity. The truth is, it was a lazy and underwhelming attempt at a leader’s budget debate. It seemed as though a novice presentation backed by a clear up-and-down analysis. In other words, it was all over the place, with no real focus and tone except for making the common allegation without one iota of evidence.
Surely, Norton had done debating before at UG, where he boasts to have lectured? He must know how to persuasively argue or bring his argumentative style into the parliamentary debate. He just stood calling out all sorts of numbers to make his presentation sound intelligent, scholarly and well researched. He had no one fooled or convinced.
Maybe his mind was not on delivering a blow to the government or representing the many constituencies that voted for the opposition. It could be that Norton’s mind was on the ways and means, through which he could secure the top presidential position in his soon-to-be-announced grand coalition.
It was disappointing and dry. He did not hold the government accountable for spending. Norton did not offer any realistic plan or countermeasure specifically related to the 2025 budget. He did, however, appear to be making contradictory and laughable promises during his 90-minute-plus speech.
It is worrisome what the opposition thinks is ‘leadership,’ because the way Norton attempted to pull the budget apart was weak and wild, at best.
Thirdly, the opposition leader admitted one fundamental thing that Guyana can’t unhear, even if it tries: Norton admitted that, in the 1970s, Burnhams’ PNC government had put additional hardships on the populace by banning some basic food items. He said that “we are proud of it.” The public wanted more admissions like that from Norton during his debate, but only got nothing but gaff, lies, and delusions.
Fourthly, the Senior Minister within the Office of the President with Responsibility for Finance and the Public Service, Dr Ashni Singh’s budgetary delivery and debate, could be described as ‘masterful, commandeering and skilful’. He began and closed off the debate like a great debater using his oratorical skills and gesticulations, historical analyses of the PNC/R-APNU+AFC’s track record in office, and facts versus lies about the budget to deliver a scathing attack on the parliamentary opposition.
Of course, Prime Minister Mark Phillips, AG Anil Nandlall, Minister Gail Teixeira, Minister Bishop Juan Edghill, and Minister Priya Manickchand laid waste to the opposition, as well. Not surprisingly Ministers Colin Croal, Susan Rodrigues and Kwame Mc Coy were on point, together sending panic through the opposition benches.
Finally, these parliamentary performances are an indication, of how the politicians will perform when they meet the public to ask for their support, then the elections will be a very strange and interesting event.
A debate was what the public wanted and needed so badly on the policies and plans of the ruling PPP/C administration. Instead, they were treated to lows and a few highs, but the government defended its policies and plans in the 2025 budget.
Author, Bruce Pittman is quoted in a journal as saying, “Projects are usually undertaken to either solve a problem or take advantage of an opportunity. The probability that the project – -even if precisely executed — will be completed on time, on budget and on performance is typically small. Project management is utilised to increase this probability. So, in a sense, project management is risk management”.
Politics is a risk, and the opposition risked failing and ended up, during the debate, failing miserably.