THIS past Friday, I happened upon the press conference of the PNCR/APNU in which the entire period was spent deriding the government for any and everything. In this vein, they seized upon the mid-year economic report published by the Ministry of Finance. They embarked on a fishing expedition that demonstrably revealed, either their lack of understanding, or a deliberate attempt to deflect. My bet is that it involves a little of both.
That said, I daresay that the PNC are miles ahead of WIN. Those people will not hold a press conference to tackle even the rudimentary political events of the week, much less make an attempt at deconstructing simi-complex economic policy variables. I do not think the principals of WIN are capable of even elementary analysis and free-flowing discursive exchanges on our growth trajectory. WIN is a private personal/family brand masquerading as a political party. This brand is built on personal vendetta, image laundering, and sensationalism. This political format is curated to benefit one entity: The Mohameds. They will never show any interest in traditional hard politics, economic policy, international affairs or any form of serious conceptional analysis of development.
Even though the principals of PNCR/APNU appeared to be talking around terms, and possibly bluffing the analysis, they are a hundred times better than WIN. They showed some signs that they can progressively get it together. With some practice and comprehensive contemplation, they may be able to string together some analysis and policy prescriptions that actually make sense. I believe the PNC’s philosophical approach to opposition politics is what is preventing them from rising to the occasions or meeting the moments that will establish them as the dominant opposition party despite holding only 12 parliamentary seats.
The fault lines in their approach lie in their one-dimensional approach to opposition. They demonstrate an insatiable desire to oppose everything, so they read a mid-year report that has hundreds of positive economic indicators and sector trends, and all they saw is the one sector that lost a half percentage point, and spent three-quarters of the 90-minute press conference belabouring it.
Dr. Terrence Campbell et al’s most laughable commentary was that the growth experienced by the other sectors are dependent on the oil sector, and they argued that that is a bad economic omen. I am writing this in nontechnical language, so that ordinary people reading it can follow along. I will debunk this myth by asking a simple question. Isn’t it commonsense that a portion of the income accumulated from oil be spent on expanding agricultural output? Isn’t it good financial management if funds from oil is redirected to investments in manufacturing, construction or wider variety and higher quality in the services sector? Of course, all other sectors will be dependent on oil to fuel (pun intended) their growth. That’s how frontier oil economies work. Based on conventional economic research; this trend is expected to continue for about a decade. Of course, I can go into complex academic technicalities and reproduce academic authorities, but because the Campbell clan lacks depth, I need not go there.
Dr. Terrence Campbell et. al also spewed a lot of shallow economic analysis in an attempt to disparage the mid-year report. For example, they argued that the recorded increases in sum depository at the commercial banks primarily resulted from the increases in accounts needed for cash grant deposits, which created artificial transient increases in number of new accounts and total deposits.
In the same breath, the group acknowledged that there was an expansion in government spending on wages and salaries. Given these two outlays alone, my question is simple: Where did the money go? Does the Campbell crew understand the rudiments of money circulation and the cyclic flow in the expenditure approach to gross domestic product?
This article was not written to disparage any individual on the APNU panel, even though I know it may very well cause some consternation. The object really intended to suggest that the principals of the PNCR are capable of more, are capable of deeper analysis that is way beyond the capacity of the sham political organisation wearing the moniker WIN. The PNCR, though having only 12 parliamentary seats, is capable of being the main opposition in performance, but they have to shift their political philosophy for from criticise everything or oppose everything to an approach that acknowledges facts and the positive moves of the government then discuss how to manipulate and fine-tune the factors to take results even further. This approach will make their analysis richer, more succinct, thoughtful and in-depth. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt; I will not accuse them of being incapable of better. I refuse to believe that they have reached the height of their intellectual prowess.
However, if they continue to pick up documents such as the mid-year report and rush through it for the few weak points just to criticise and sound noble, that would mean that they have to dabble in incomplete analysis. This approach forced Campbell and crew to ignore glaring positives and solid economic growth trends in both oil and non-oil sectors. In so doing, they lose credibility, and continue to play a junior role in the Opposition, and pass up on occasions to make a dozen appear bigger than 16.