As usual, the annual speech delivered by President Jennifer Geerlings-Simons on Wednesday contained many good intentions and numerous promises from the government. Supporters and opponents then rushed – as usual – to express their admiration or disapproval in the media. Now that the first clouds of dust have cleared, a cautious conclusion can be drawn: the argument was mainly about looking at what the future will bring and above all hoping that everything will turn out well.
Text Armand Snijders
Image CDS
Anyone who reads the government statement for the 2027 service year cannot escape a recognizable feeling that most of it has already been said before. The head of state sketched a horizon full of flourishing agriculture, restored healthcare, renewed purchasing power and a stable Surinamese dollar. It is a dream that every Surinamese undoubtedly shares. However, when policy intentions are stripped of their political fringes and tested against the associated draft budgets, a gaping gap remains between ambition and reality.
“The annual speech excels in ‘what’ the government wants to do, but remains hopelessly vague about ‘how’ and ‘by whom’”
The common thread in this annual speech is not a conclusive financial-economic plan, but a profound belief in the petrodollars that should start flowing from 2028, mixed with the hope that Surinamese society can keep its head above water until then.
The policies presented are faltering under the weight of a persistent budget deficit. The government promises large-scale investments in infrastructure and a significant expansion of the social safety net. However, at the same time, the necessary structural state revenues are lagging behind. And to help with this, the government wants to borrow a lot of money again. But is that such a good idea?
The macroeconomic stabilization program, which has cost society heavy sacrifices in recent years, appears to be being exchanged for a more populist spending pattern in this annual speech. This was undoubtedly done under pressure from the supporters and to keep society quiet. However, money that is not there cannot be spent without restarting the inflationary spiral.
Bureaucracy and clientelism
In the social field, the finger was pointed out: poverty is deeply rooted and the middle class has been virtually decimated. The promise to strengthen purchasing power through tax measures and targeted subsidies sounds nice. In practice in recent years we have already learned that the implementation of these types of systems often founders in bureaucracy and clientelism. The transformation from object subsidies to subject subsidies has still not been fully and efficiently implemented, as a result of which the weakest in society are in danger of being left out.
Even more urgent is the crisis in healthcare, a sector that received a lot of lip service in the annual speech, but for which concrete rescue plans were not forthcoming. The president spoke about restoring hospitals and stopping the brain drain of nursing and medical staff. How this is expected to be achieved with the current tight budgets and international competition on the labor market remained unanswered. In any case, it remains a case of mopping with the tap open as long as basic facilities are lacking in the hospitals themselves and medical consumables still cannot be guaranteed.
Tight party lines
As expected, political responses were divided along strict party lines. Within coalition circles, the annual speech is praised as a “bold and socially committed master plan”. Prominent coalition members hastened to declare that the president has shown that he cares for the suffering people.
However, the coalition is once again asking society for patience and trust, arguing that the foundations for sustainable growth are now being laid and that the fruits will become visible in the coming service year. Society will think: ‘seeing first then believing’.
On the other side of the political spectrum, the criticism is harsh. The opposition speaks of a ‘fairy tale book’ and an ‘election speech avant la lettre‘. Or a kind of election speech, while the elections are still a long way off.
According to critics, any form of self-reflection is lacking in any case. People refer to rising crime, the persistent devaluation pressure on the Surinamese dollar and the failure to implement the promised approach to corruption. The opposition also points out that the 2027 budget is unrealistic and that citizens will ultimately have to pay for the policy miscalculations through increased rates for gas, electricity and water and through indirect taxes.
Built on quicksand
Outside the political arena, the judgment of economists and social experts is a lot more reserved and business-like, but no less critical. Financial and economic analysts point out that the economic growth forecasts used by the government are on the optimistic side. In fact, the policy is said to be built on quicksand. Much depends on international market prices for gold and oil, factors over which Paramaribo has absolutely no influence.
Moreover, the IMF program and the strict fiscal discipline that accompanies it leave little room for the generous spending policy that the president suggested in her annual speech. It is feared that the government will back down and have to implement harsh cuts, possibly resulting in social unrest.
A thin cord
The annual speech for the 2027 service year shows a government balancing on a thin line. On the one hand, there is the need to offer the population perspective and relief after years of abject poverty and sacrifice, which in fact already occurred under a previous NDP government of Desi Bouterse (2010-2020). On the other hand, there is the reality of a pretty empty treasury and a shaky economy.
In the meantime, Geerlings-Simons appeals for national unity and hope and to build a bridge between these two worlds that are separated. But in the harsh world of macroeconomics, hope is not a strategy, nor can you build policy on it. As long as the government does not dare to put its finger on the sore spot – namely that Suriname has been living beyond its means for decades and the production base is too narrow to pursue its ambitions – every annual speech will remain largely a matter of making up the table.
The annual speech excels in ‘what’ the government wants to do, but remains hopelessly vague about ‘how’ and ‘by whom’. They remain nothing more than good intentions in letters on paper. The coming period will have to show whether this government is able to translate its promises into actions or whether it must once again be concluded that the gap between the written text and the reality of the Surinamese citizen has proven to be unbridgeable. For the time being, doubt predominates.
