Across the spectrum of our various domestic publics – and there are quite a few of those – the advent of the country’s ‘oil wealth’ as a presumed transformational factor in the country’s development, going forward, means different things to different constituencies.
History has instructed us that sudden transformations in the material fortunes of countries do not necessarily go on to longer-term all-round prosperity. Pockets of poverty, often huge ones, are known to persist in countries that have benefitted from significant infusions of material resources. By the same token such all-round transformation as might have been initially envisaged can, and has been, in many instances, crippled by excursions into the most shocking orgies of official corruption. The reality is that where sharply contrasting aspirations exist, some of those aspirants are bound to be disappointed.
An equally challenging circumstance that might arise out of such ‘heaven-sent’ opportunities may derive from differences of opinion with regard to the route to an agreed goal. While, in a generalized sort of way, both government and governed might declare a desire that the country’s oil wealth be used to create ‘a better quality of life for the people of Guyana,’ perspectives on how we arrive at that across-the-board better quality of life is likely to differ, even significantly, from one group to another. When that happens, it is, invariably, those who rule, who have their way.
How best to safeguard the receivables from the oil and gas sector from misapplication, even misappropriation has been the subject of lively spurts of public debate long prior to Exxon-Mobil’s disclosure in late 2019 that its Liza-1 field had yielded oil for the first time. The brief but energetic ‘public discourse’ on just how the collectables from oil sales should be safeguarded had to do, overwhelmingly, with considerations of public trust. Anomalies in public accountability that coincide with sudden infusions of significant earnings from one source or another have become globally commonplace. There was no particular reason to believe, it seems, that Guyana’s oil and gas earnings might not suffer a similar fate. Accordingly, when, reportedly, it was made public that ‘the Kazakhstan Model’ for managing the returns from Guyana’s oil sector was being favoured by President Ali and Vice President Jagdeo, the notion was energetically frowned upon by both domestic and international constituencies. Truth be told there is every likelihood that the public discourse with regard to the manner in which the country’s oil and gas earnings are being disbursed is likely to surface repeatedly, over time, going forward. Guyana, after all, is really no different from other mostly poor countries where material windfalls trigger animated public chatter revolving around concerns that have to do with the fiduciary integrity of those who administer those resources.
In Guyana, as in other developing countries, the advent of an oil and gas industry has given rise to an understandable clamour for greater official accountability. Whether we like it or not this is an indication of a deficit in the level of public trust in government in the matter of its fiduciary obligation to the country.
The advent of an oil and gas sector in Guyana has given rise to separate ‘constituencies.’ There is, first and foremost, what might be termed the ‘instant gratification’ constituency…the poorest of the poor whose choice, in so many instances, is for the application of a response that focuses on instant gratification and which manifests itself in poverty-alleviating material disbursements. There are those, too, who are prepared (with some reservations, one might add) to wait-out a transformational period during which socio-economic development is a more protracted state-directed process and where the sharing of the spoils becomes, hopefully a more structured and arguably a more socially responsible process. Thirdly – and there is already manifest evidence of this – there is the business class for which the advent of an oil and gas industry is a heaven-sent opportunity for a considerable entrepreneurial ‘leap forward,’ that can be realized through multi-faceted opportunities that emerge from partnerships with investment-hungry expatriate business interests.
No sound analysis of the future of Guyana’s oil and gas industry can be undertaken without being mindful of the climate change constituency. As a newcomer to the oil and gas industry, Guyana can hardly ignore the acceleration of the pre-existing international anti fossil fuel prejudice that gained considerable impetus from the COP 26 UN Climate Change Conference staged in Glasgow, Scotland in October/November last year. The reality is that climate change pressures have won the fossil fuels industry increasing numbers of detractors. There is no reason to believe that, going forward, Guyana’s envisaged oil-driven development trajectory will not be continually ‘shadowed’ by the global climate change lobby that continues to grow not just in its intensity but in the extent of the international acceptance that it has accumulated since Glasgow. Here in Guyana, weak and still largely ineffective as it is at this time, the local climate change constituency understands only too well that Guyana’s oil wealth aspirations, like those elsewhere in South America and Africa will come under increasing global scrutiny from a climate change lobby that cannot now be ignored in any corner of the globe.
All of this is by no means disconnected from Guyana’s pursuit of a development path that is underpinned, at least for the immediate future, by a dependence on returns from the country’s oil and gas sector. We would do well, however, to remain acutely aware of the reality of challenging domestic and external considerations that will have to be navigated if the country’s oil and gas resources are to lift us out of the poverty trap in which we have long been imprisoned.
