Guyana was once considered the second poorest country in the Western hemisphere, trailing only behind Haiti – and then came oil. Almost overnight, our tiny country often confused with Ghana, shot from relative obscurity and into the global spotlight. As one of the fastest growing economies in the world, our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was recalculated, and now Guyana stands as an upper-middle-income economy. On the global stage, we have arrived.
On the local stage though, (the only one that matters) the reality remains grim, and in many cases even direr than it was before for the nation’s poor. The United Nations Development Programme in 2022 reported that 38.8% of Guyanese are significantly deprived. The World Bank in that same period stated that Guyana has one of the highest national poverty headcounts in Latin America and the Caribbean. Since 2020, food insecurity levels have drastically increased, with the Food and Agriculture Organization reporting that an estimated 58% of respondents in Guyana are moderately or severely food insecure. Amidst the rising condominiums, gated communities and Western businesses, this is the Guyana that is taking shape and being solidified by anti-poor policies and beliefs.
When these policies and beliefs are brought up, people like to clarify that they do not hate poor people, they hate their mindset. It’s kind of the “hate the sin, love the sinner” gist, both shrouded in personal denials and impracticality. People who are poor are policed for how they spend in a way that no other class is, with their consumption habits being tied neatly as the sole reason they are unable to escape impoverishment. Largely, people still subscribe to the idea that those who are poor are poor for a reason. If only poor people were motivated enough to pull themselves up by their bootstraps in this land of opportunity. Rarely do they seriously consider the addendums these opportunities often have, or how rooted in inequalities they are, making it extremely difficult for those without money, education or connections to make it up a rung on the social ladder. As much as the business and lifestyle coaches would have us believe differently, you cannot individually shape your reality in a capitalist system that is centred on inequality and pure dumb luck, rather than hard work and good intent.
What is almost always interesting about anti-poor rhetoric is that while it often comes from those who grew up privileged, it just as often comes from those who managed to make it out of the slums. Those now residing in the upper and mid echelon of society, believe that their less-than-comfortable upbringing gives them the right to speak about how those who are poor must act. To hear them tell it, growing up poor means they cannot be anti-poor and condescending to those they see themselves to have risen above. The reality of this conundrum was perfectly articulated in one of Walter Rodney’s speeches on race and class where he stated, “Class origin means nothing in the Caribbean. It is class function…The middle class came out of the working class and peasantry. Many of the West Indies middle class can tell you that their father was a fisherman or this or that. But it doesn’t really cut much ice,” – and it really does not cut much ice. Your class genesis means nothing if you are currently within another one and acting as a keeper of it.
An example of this mindset was seen when criticisms arose over the building of low-income homes that many likened to chicken coops given the cramped space and substandard design and materials. The structures in the developing shantytown are going at five million dollars a pop. That is no small amount for low-income persons, and even if they were to pay it, should they not do so for structures that are up to standard? What this demonstrates are several things: lack of imagination on the part of the government (these are not privately funded developments), gross disrespect for those who are seen as less than others, and an absolute absence of will to even attempt to do better.
Of course, when people dared to highlight the issues with the structures, the middle and upper class came out in their numbers, speaking about the ignorance and ungratefulness of those who should be grateful they were getting something. These positions point to the way in which those who are poor are expected to accept the absolute bare minimum, simply because they are not in a great bargaining position to reject it. These substandard structures provide no opportunity for expansion or community evolution. What it is, is a government-sponsored developing shantytown that will be rich with the very same issues faced by other disadvantaged communities such as lack of access to adequate resources, green and recreational spaces, and educational needs. What is considered basic necessities elsewhere, in Guyana, is apparently considered a luxury.
Those who are poor should not be grateful for the bare minimum, especially when they are expected to pay for that bare minimum. Do poor people not deserve more? The resounding answer from those with the power to make a difference is no. Equity today remains an alien concept in Guyana’s development, and the current trajectory demonstrates that this will not change anytime soon.
