Poor people

Feb 03, 2013 APNU Column, Features / Columnists

---

Much has been made, mistakenly, of the meaning of Jesus Christ’s words –”the poor ye have always with you” – recorded in St Matthew’s Gospel in the Holy Bible. Guyanese, however, should not accept poverty as a permanent condition of its citizens and should not accustom themselves to seeing poor people everywhere.
This country, arguably, has never been wealthy by western standards but the appearance of hordes of extremely poor, destitute, homeless persons and street children over the past two decades is a man-made catastrophe, not an act of God. Poverty can be reduced and, perhaps, eventually eradicated, with good governance, a safe environment and sensible public policies.
The United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index report assesses the level of poverty in Guyana at 39.5 per cent. About two-thirds of this number can be classified as ‘extremely poor’ with an expenditure level that is below what is required to purchase a minimum low-cost diet. The Index continues to rank Guyana well behind Barbados which gained Independence in 1966 the same year as Guyana. Our neighbours – Suriname, Venezuela and Brazil – are all ranked higher.
The Human Development Index is a rough guide to a people’s quality of life. It emphasises education and health but also assesses the impact of other social services. Education and health are two of the major measures of human comfort. Countries which possess well-built schools which are equipped with libraries, laboratories and recreational facilities and are staffed by trained teachers, who manage their institutions efficiently, are likely to enjoy a high standard of education. The same goes for hospitals staffed by committed nurses, doctors and technicians.
Guyana’s plan to eliminate poverty is based on its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. This was meant to be a mechanism through which Guyana, defined as a low-income country, can craft its own plan for poverty reduction and can provide a guideline for the World Bank to render assistance. The principles governing the PRSP are that they must be country-driven, written with the input of civil society, must focus on outcomes that would benefit the poor, must be partnership oriented and must be based on a long-term perspective for poverty reduction.
Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, at the PRSP consultations in January 2008, charged that the success rate of the poverty reduction strategy papers over the previous five years had been “minimal with no significant reduction in moderate and extreme poverty levels countrywide.”
Hinds told the participants that the results in two poverty status surveys conducted in 1999 and 2006 following the implementation of the first Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper had been “marginal.” When another assessment was done at the end of 2006, the implementation of the programmes set out in the paper had only showed marginal reduction in the poverty levels. He called on participants at the consultation for the 2008-2012 Paper to find out “why there have been such poor results.”
Hinds admitted what everyone has been observing over the past twenty years of People’s Progressive Party administration – increasing impoverishment of a larger section of the population side-by-side with the enrichment of a tiny élite, with a widening income gap between the new super rich and the poor.
Poor people are not all the same. Some belong to a class of ‘hereditary poor’ who have endured wretched conditions for generations. Most have little education, shoddy clothing and housing, deficient diets and substandard health care. There are also the ‘invisible poor’ who might be infirm or disabled and are usually out of sight. Those who are unemployed or underemployed and the homeless and the destitute constitute the largest group of poor people.
Street children, perhaps, are the most undeserving of their plight. Unkempt, uneducated, undisciplined and uncared for, they live in a catch-as-catch-can world around fast-food restaurants and supermarkets in the central business district by day. They pass their nights outside night clubs and bars in the entertainment circuit and sleep on makeshift cardboard cots on the city’s pavements and parapets.
These are children. They survive by begging, gambling, stealing and working at odd jobs. They are usually victims of sexual molestation by older men. Beyond the care of adults, many juveniles are increasingly being seduced into criminal activity by older boys.
The PPP/C administration’s attempts to eradicate poverty have failed. The Ministry of Human Services’ short-term campaigns have not had lasting results. The administration seems to be infatuated with the Victorian-style ‘big house’ remedies of trying to heap as many poor people together in one place. This approach is manifested in the Drop-in-Centre and Night Shelter mentality. Constructing concentration centres might succeed in sweeping the issue under the carpet for a short while, but cannot solve the problem of poverty in the long term.
The administration has also injected doses of cash into the Social Impact Amelioration Programme, Basic Needs Trust Fund, Youth Choice Initiative, Amerindian Development Fund, Rural Community Support Project Poverty Reduction Strategy and other disparate programmes. They have not stimulated economic growth, created new jobs or reduced poverty in any significant way.
The true test of a progressive government is whether it is prepared to protect the poor and to provide opportunities for people to enjoy a good life. This is what is expected in other Caribbean countries such as Barbados or The Bahamas, for example. The PPP/C administration, after twenty years in office, however, failed to improve the education infrastructure sufficiently; failed to expand access of small businesspersons and farmers to micro-credit and failed to expand markets for produce. The PPP/C, most of all, has failed to promote the rapid economic growth needed to create employment. That is why poverty persists in Guyana.

---

---