The spectacular discoveries of oil in offshore Guyana, with promises of a glowing future, must be tempered with what that future really means and with the realities of today. It appears that Guyana stands to receive $US300 million a year for the first five years after production commences and a little over that sum for the twenty years thereafter. The size of Guyana’s economy is $US1.2 billion. This means that Guyana’s economy will increase by one-fifth as a result of oil revenue. This will be a significant boost but by no means a spectacular transformation. This figure is probably based on production of 100,000 barrels a day. It may well be that Exxon will produce far more than that amount for various economic reasons. While all of this is in the future, Guyana has pressing economic and political problems that require immediate solutions.
The dismissal of thousands of sugar workers will intensify poverty and crime across Guyana, particularly in the areas affected by the closures. Communities will deteriorate, drug taking and alcohol abuse will intensify and the economy will suffer from reduced spending. All of this will impact negatively on economic growth for 2018. By the time divestment concludes and some job opportunities emerge, the damage to the communities and their inhabitants would already have occurred. There is no immediate potential investment in Guyana’s economy on a scale large enough to absorb the dismissed sugar workers, or even a portion of them, that will make a difference to their dire situation. Any impact that a new oil industry may have is at least ten years away. By this time, an entire generation of workers and their children will be lost to productive labour by a decade of deprivation.
In the critical years of the 1970s and 1980s, three major issues engaged the attention of my political colleagues – restore democracy, advance social progress and avoid civil strife. We firmly believed that Guyana could make no progress unless full democracy through free and fair elections were restored. Our analysis was that it was the lack of internal democracy that was responsible for what we then saw as the failure of the economic reforms in the 1970s and 1980s to lead to economic and social progress. The PPP saw this and gave a lifeline to the PNC more than once. The most notable was the National Patriotic Front under which, after free and fair elections, the largest political party would take the prime ministership and the second largest the executive presidency. The PNC would not hear of it. Even if democracy had not been restored in 1992, developments in the world would have ensured that by today we would have been living in a democratic Guyana.
The victory of democracy in 1992 has resulted in substantial economic and social progress for Guyana. But this progress gave rise to other problems. The incipient problems of corruption and lack of transparency and accountability exploded, with little effort to resolve them. Also, the intractable issue of ethno-political domination was put aside because of the unremitting, and sometimes violent opposition of the PNC, as well as some degree of triumphalism within the PPP. Attempts to work through and resolve differences between the PPP government and Desmond Hoyte and later Robert Corbin failed. The PPP government was mainly responsible. When the real opportunity of embracing unity presented itself in 2011, the PPP did not even consider forming a coalition with APNU. The reticence today of both parties in embracing constitutional reform which would diminish the impact of ethno-politics is the next hurdle the Guyanese people have to overcome.
Since the retirement of Chancellor (ag) Carl Singh and Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang, the issue of their replacement has been at the forefront of discourse, at least privately, in legal circles, but occasionally in the media. I myself have written about the issue once when I called on President Granger to appoint persons to fill the posts which had become vacant and had remained so for several months. I was quite pleased when the President made acting appointments of Chief Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards as Chancellor (ag) and of Justice George-Wiltshire S.C. as Chief Justice (ag). Justice George-Wiltshire S.C. who was also subsequently appointed as an Appeal Court Judge.
These two acting appointments, which only required consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, were enormously popular in the legal profession. After some months as acting appointees, I can say with certainty that the anticipated performances of the Chancellor (ag) and Chief Justice (ag) have exceeded expectations amidst enormous challenges, which had commenced under the chancellorship of Carl Singh, not least among which are the implementation of the new Civil Procedure Rules, the establishment of courts with new jurisdictions for family and sexual offences, the appointment of additional judges and a building programme to house courts, magistrates and judges. I believe that this opinion is shared by the legal profession.
Since the victory of the APNU+AFC coalition in 2015, the colour of APNU, green, in which the President is often dressed, is being promoted everywhere. It first started with school buses and school boats. Now it is reported that school benches at some locations are being painted green. These were followed by the new, imposing, fence at the Office of the President which itself, along with State House, have now fallen victim to the colour green.
The designation of Guyana as ‘The Green State’ was not an accident. Dozens of characterizations could have been formulated to define Guyana’s intended adherence to a strict environmental regime, details of which are yet to be announced. But it is believed that the selection of the term ‘The Green State’ had something to do with the party colour and the President’s obvious attraction to it.
There was a signing bonus. It was known but denied by several Ministers of the Government. There should be consequences but the precedent has long been established that ministerial responsibilities are not recognized and therefore consequences do not flow from their actions or omissions. Unless there is a mass upsurge, which is unlikely, this uniquely unjustifiable deed will continue to be defended, as it was in or just out of the National Assembly. There is no excuse for the secrecy and any attempt to defend it is an insult to the Guyanese people. Transparency International called it “deception.”
In Guyana, politics is a zero-sum game. Rules of transparency and accountability are weak and where they exist are not enforced. No conventions have not been established or are entrenched. The prevailing wisdom, therefore, is to give the Opposition and the Guyanese people as little as possible, and where possible, nothing. This is the national, political culture derived from its core defect, the politics of ethno-political domination, which implies that the other side are their supporters are enemies and not to be trusted – with anything. It’s us and them, sometimes, us or them. And the people are the pawns. This is the reason why the APNU-AFC coalition, when in opposition, could have been so strident in defence of transparency and accountability, and can now so blithely dismiss such concepts with contempt.