This week marks the 12th anniversary of the PPP/Civic coming to power in Guyana. October 5, 1993 was an historic day for Guyana, and the year that followed a euphoric one for Guyanese at home and abroad.

As the first truly democratically elected government in almost three decades, the PPP/Civic rode on the euphoria and support and was so able to bring the nation back from the brink. It was not an easy task. What it had inherited was a country with its economic, political and social infrastructure in a state of disarray. Guyana had been one of the most affluent countries in the Caribbean. But by 1992 it had earned the dubious and superlative status of being the poorest nation in the region. Not only had it been mismanaged, it had also been plundered by a greedy, xenophobic and racist demagogue.

Without doubt, credit must go to the PPP/Civic for stopping the haemorrhage. There are more positive achievements. Guyanese now enjoy freedom of speech and association, which was imperiled during the PNC dictatorship. There is freedom of choice and the strength of a money economy. Its education and health care system have improved.

However, looking back now, the year 1997 seems to be a turning point in the fortunes of the ruling party. Since then, political and economic conditions appear to have deteriorated. And on the social front in the last few years, crime has grown in volume and violence, particularly against Indo-Guyanese.

On the political front, the fortunes of the PPP/Civic seem to not have recovered after the death of Dr. Cheddi Jagan in 1997. His successor, the stately but frail Janet Jagan was unable to rekindle the torch held by her late husband. Bharat Jagdeo followed in her footsteps, and has today proven unable to lead with inspiration, vision and fortitude.

Naturally, such a climate of uncertainty has caused deleterious impacts on all fronts. Mostly evident has been the hesitation, contraction — and in some cases, reversals — that now pervade the entire country. On the economic front, during the first half of the PPP/Civic’s term in office, growth averaged over six percent a year. However, since 1997, the GDP has contracted to an average of just about one percent annually. Arguably, this nation relies heavily on natural resources as sugar, gold and bauxite. And like other nations, it has also been fighting the battles with the global recession of recent years.

But the PPP/Civic has also been losing battles on the home front. There has been social unrest caused by the flaring up of crime, an onslaught that is now an unwieldy social conflagration. The government remains at a loss on how to put this fire out. And significantly, it has not been able to deal with the opposition parties.

Twelve years after the PPP/Civic came to power Guyana has come to a standstill.

As happened in 1992, it has again taken former US president, Jimmy Carter to point out the way. In Guyana last August, the distillation of his observations was this nation cannot move forward without participatory democracy. He declared that substantial social and economic progress cannot take place within the historical and internecine rivalry that is pulling the political parties apart.

Carter also highlighted the importance of implementing the National Development Strategy, a document that seeks to identify bottlenecks in the economy; it also suggests ways to enhance economic growth. One of its key provisions is the call for participatory democracy where opposition parties would share in the shaping of national policies. Thankfully, President Jagdeo has indicated continued interest in this direction.

As the PPP/Civic and Guyanese celebrate the 12th anniversary of the return of democracy, it is important that this milestone be viewed not within the shortsightedness of partisan political needs, but rather through a wider angle that is inclusive and focused on nation building for Guyana in its entirety. That this promising nation is now at a standstill is reason enough for immediate and remedial action.

Pressure was on Kerry to do well to overcome Bush’s huge lead in the opinion polls and Kerry came through handsomely. All the opinion polls, including an informal NACTA poll, conducted after the debate indicated Kerry won big and the race has now tightened up after Bush held double digits lead for a month.

During the heated debate, Bush and Kerry focused only on foreign affairs as per prior agreement. They repeatedly clashed over who could best protect America, the invasion of Iraq, and how to lead the country in an age of Islamic terrorism. Kerry shook Bush’s image as a strong leader.

Before the debate, Caribbean-American Democrats had given up hope on their candidate ridiculing him by for "running a lackluster campaign". But now with an overall magnificent performance repeatedly jabbing and rattling the incumbent Bush, he has breathed new life to Democrats who now see the possibility of a victory if Kerry keeps up his brilliant performance in the remaining two debates.

An ABC News poll conducted after the debate found that 45 percent of a sample of registered voters thought Kerry won, compared with 36 percent for Bush and 17 percent who called it a tie. Among uncommitted voters, a CBS News poll found that 43 percent thought Kerry came out ahead while 28 percent said Bush was the winner. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup overnight poll showed Kerry won convincingly, in terms of people who were scoring the debate. But the poll found Bush more likeable and a stronger leader. NBC News interviewed undecided voters and they all believed that John Kerry won the debate overwhelmingly. Also, an informal NACTA poll among Guyanese and other Caribbean nationals and my students reveal that Kerry won decisively.

During the debate, Bush hardly showed any of his trademark congenial, personable character. Bush appeared flustered, confused, tentative, unsure, angry, apprehensive, defensive, and frustrated at different times during most of the debate. In fact, the debate exposed him as lacking the skills needed to be president. He did not appear presidential and tried to be aggressive but did not have the intellectual capacity to counter attack Kerry’s strong points. Bush says he is resolute and consistent. But Kerry challenged him that consistency is not good when you are wrong and indicated that the President has been consistently wrong on the war against terror fighting the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. He said Bush should be looking for Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the attacks on the U.S, not Saddam Hussein who did not attack the U.S, did not have links with Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terror network, and did not possess WMDs. By going after Saddam, Bush was using a weapon of mass distraction misleading Americans and the world community.

Kerry also questioned the way Bush has fought the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and his handling of North Korea and Iran, two countries suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons programs. He also questioned the President’s handling of the huge stockpile of nuclear weapons from Russia, which would pose a threat to global security in the hands of terrorists.

Kerry presented himself in a coherent, intelligent way and in plain English. Kerry was focused on the issues and consistent in his answers to questions. He was very articulate and showed he knows more about foreign policy than Bush does. He also showed that he had the knowledge, wisdom and other requirements needed to be president. He presented his answers to questions with facts, confident in his position and his beliefs. He showed that he is fully qualified to be Commander-in-Chief who will not be reckless in using force as the current President does. He appeared sure of himself conveying a message to undecided voters that he is electable.

Kerry offered clear differences from the President on a whole variety of foreign policy security issues. He put forward an alternative view in fighting the war on terror and restoring order in Iraq – building an alliance comprising of Russia, Germany, France, India, etc, and the Arab nations.

Expect a lot of negative ads to distort Kerry’s position during the rest of the campaign as the Republicans have done since July.

Wen I was a boy and growing up in central Trinidad, an old and frail black man would sometimes walk up our street with numerous pots strung on his back. A leather bag of tools would hang from his belt. He had a pronounced limp. I recall he was bowed in the legs, but this could have been due to the weight of the pots, pans and the tools that he carried. He also carried a small bulky bench, a ‘peerhah’ as my grandmother called it. He would bob his oversized head from one side of the street to the next calling out to the houses as he clanked along.