Today, March 28, is another “Big Day” in the calendar of the governing Unity Labour Party (ULP). It marks the 23rd anniversary of the victory of the ULP over the New Democratic Party (NDP) which had governed this country since

1984, a then unprecedented and unbroken 17-year reign. It has proven to be a decisive turning point in our country’s history.

Knowing how the ULP leadership wallows in admiration, one can expect a week of celebratory activities leading up to an advertised April 7 grand event. Indeed, it has already been billed as the last major event to take place on the tarmac of the old Arnos Vale airport tarmac and, since the new hospital is to be built there, can be seen as the opening salvo in the propaganda about that much-needed project.

To be fair, no one can honestly begrudge the ULP’s celebrations, for they do have much to celebrate, and much of which to be proud. On the other hand, it does not mean that all is well in this fair land of ours; we still have a long hard road to travel. Experiences all around the globe have shown that setbacks and reversals are possible as times and seasons change. We must bear this in mind.

Yet it is downright ridiculous to say, as some do, that there has been little or even no progress in SVG under the ULP. That line of argument has no basis. One can question many aspects of our life 23 years after March 28, 2001, but there is no denying that our country is in many respects a much-changed society. Those changes have impacted positively on the lives of thousands of our citizens especially in the aspects dealing with social welfare. We can expect to be reminded of these all week.

There is in some circles, not just political opposition, much ado about the public debt, with good reason I must say. But in response the government has answered by qualifying factors such as (a) the ability to repay, (b) the terms and conditions of debt repayment, (C) the nature of the debt and the purpose to which it has been put.

Such debate ought to be encouraged for I find it pathetic that in a country where the level of education has greatly increased, particularly at the tertiary level, there is insufficient public discourse on these matters. Those in the know have a responsibility to help to lift the level of understanding of the rest of us who are not so fortunate.

It must be said however, as tends to happen in small societies like ours there is always a tendency of those controlling the levers of power to be suspicious at least, and more likely not receptive to criticisms, often not specifically of government policy but often of implementation, of performance. Many genuine criticisms are therefore not taken seriously but characterised as emanating from persons “opposed to the government”.

This is a self-destructive approach which has contributed to the downfall of many governments. We must learn from history and stand by our commitment to “correct historical wrongs”. Given the weakness of the Opposition to engage in serious debate about public policy, preferring to crowd please often with inanities instead, it is important to encourage and facilitate open debate in all forms of the media on public policy. It is a win-win approach, assuming you are on the right course.

This is even more important given the failure of the government to facilitate civil society involvement in governance. I could see them already getting hot under the collar, but let them take time to chew on it and expose their young, bright eagles to inform themselves of the reality. It was the contradictions between civil society, led by the trade union movement, and the NDP government which opened the highway to power for the ULP, an opportunity which was gleefully seized.

When the ULP took power in 2001, democratic local government had not been practised for a generation. In a generation since the ULP has been in power we are no further along that road. How do we justify that? There was even a committee set up for that purpose, what has been its product, and why are we no wiser as to why there is not even reference to it in official circles?

To its credit, the ULP government not only encouraged popular participation by such historic steps as the establishment of a National Economic Social and development Council (NESDEC), even going so far as to legislate for it, but also in a similar manner the Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC). These were potentially revolutionary measures but for one reason or another there is today no mention of them, no attempt to learn from what mistakes have been made. Those things matter.

But above all, there appears to be only a focus on the big, macro projects, dazzling us with million-dollar figures. But many people have problems at the local, the community level and, too many bureaucrats are allowed to ignore them.

More on this next week

• Renwick Rose is a community activist and social commentator.