OPINION: Where is the AFC plan?

By Dr. Randy Persaud, Professor Emeritus

There have been recent calls for a consensus-based national development plan. In my view, two versions of consensus warrant attention in the current conjuncture. The first, which I shall call constructive consensus, is based on exchange of substantive ideas that yield positive and measurable outcomes. This form of consensus involves balanced contributions from all the parties involved. Put differently, constructive consensus is based on accumulated social capital.

The second kind of consensus under consideration here may be labeled performative consensus. It is based on rhetorical performances by actors who, lacking any real social capital of their own, prefer to engage in symbolic action in order to derive a modicum of legitimacy from publics.

Constructive consensus fits the historical and contemporary record of the PPP. By contrast, performative consensus, which is characterized by parasitic and exploitative behavior, accurately describes the AFC. The actors in this type of consensus, in this case the AFC, seek to exploit those who have been in the trenches with their communities, and have interacted with experts in a wide range of issue areas over a broad expanse of time.

Performative consensus leads to instrumentalist development ideas. This is so because actors in this mode, such as the AFC, have only elliptical connections to the publics which they claim to serve, and whose votes they want. Take the leadership of the AFC, for instance. Nigel Hughes has not been even remotely connected to ordinary people. Most of his time has been spent serving high-end clients through the law firm Hughes, Fields, and Stoby.

While he was engaged in that sort of thing, Mohamed Ifraan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo were working night and day, weekends included, over many years, to produce the seven-volume National Development Strategy (1996), the 2009 Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS), and the Revised LCDS 2030. As both President Ali and Vice President Jagdeo have said on a number of occasions, the current developments in infrastructure – roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, telecommunications, water, forestry management, drainage and irrigation, among others – are all to be found in the key strategy documents of the PPPC.

In yesterday’s Kaieteur News, (8/10/2024) one of the Toms attacked Jagdeo for refusing to meet Hughes until such time that the AFC has a plan to discuss. This type of rant has become predictable and not worth discussing. But for those who are reasonable, allow me to ask this: if there is a meeting to discuss plans for development, and one side has three major documents comprising about a dozen volumes (the PPP), and the other side has not even an outline of a plan, what can you discuss? Let us avoid the embarrassment of the AFC, and avoid wasting the time of the PPP leaders.

The truth of the matter, even though the AFC has no plan of its own, is that Nigel Hughes called for a meeting of the minds. It appears that the real objective is to please the ‘international community’ who, rightfully, would like to see efforts towards working together, cooperation, and that sort of thing. But Hughes must quickly come to the realization that everyone knows his call is a stunt.

Making use of ‘all the brains’ in the country is something the PPP is ready for. But we need to go beyond words, beyond rhetorical performances, beyond symbolic gyrations, beyond sweet talk, beyond fake patriotism. We need to see a plan from the AFC. Until then, all their calls amount to jabs in the dark. If we do not see such a plan, the basis for cooperation is vacuous. Instead of constructive consensus, we will end up with a little AFC performance, photos and all.

Dr. Randy Persaud is an adviser in the Office of the President.