Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded – Column 142
Introduction
The response to Ram & McRae’s recent survey on the 2016 Petroleum Agreement was revealing, particularly Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s immediate dismissal of its findings and his attempt to shut down any discussion of a referendum. His reaction betrays a troubling resistance to public discourse about Guyana’s most valuable natural resource.
Let us be clear: it is not within any VP’s power to decide whether Guyanese can have a referendum. The Constitution establishes referendums as a democratic tool, with such decisions resting with the National Assembly and the President, not with a party official, however high up. While Mr. Jagdeo is the General Secretary of the ruling party, he is not even the First Vice President – that position belongs to Brigadier Mark Phillips by virtue of his position as Prime Minister.
Campaign promises vs. current reality
Mr. Jagdeo’s dismissal of a referendum on the Agreement is particularly revealing, given his party’s explicit promises during the 2020 election campaign. The PPP/C’s manifesto and numerous campaign speeches promised not just to review but to actively renegotiate the contract’s terms. Now, the VP attempts to rewrite history, claiming “we showed that we can get more out of the contract” through peripheral arrangements like the gas-to-energy project and Local Content Law.
The evidence suggests otherwise. The gas-to-energy project’s terms remain outside of the 2016 Agreement and are troublingly opaque, with mounting questions about its actual cost to Guyanese taxpayers. Even the Local Content Law is defined far too broadly, and the promised review due in 2023 has still not been done. And while essential for domestic business participation, it does nothing to address the Agreement’s fundamental inequities. Most critically, the cost recovery provisions still allow operators to claim up to 75% of revenues, leaving Guyana with a diminished share of its resource wealth, environmental protections remain inadequate, and worst of all, Jagdeo and the PPP/C are placing the myth of sanctity of contract over national sovereignty. Please see columns 133 – 135. Egregiously, the country is without the all-important Petroleum Commission, with the unacceptable substitute being the VP himself and the Ministry of Natural Resources, with its poor track record.
The VP’s claim that a referendum would “complicate” the electoral process defies constitutional precedent and global democratic practice. Numerous countries, including several Caribbean nations, routinely conduct referendums alongside national elections, recognising both the cost efficiency and democratic value of such exercises. The actual “complication” appears to be his reluctance to face the electorate’s direct verdict on this crucial issue and his own stewardship of the sector.
“Suspect” survey
Mr. Jagdeo’s description of the survey as “suspect” demands examination. The survey itself was a global survey using Google Forms. Additionally, it was distributed to all leading members of private sector organisations and political parties in Guyana – including the PPP/C, where he serves as long-term General Secretary. If the results are “suspect,” one must ask why his party and supporters, who received direct invitations, chose not to participate and offer opposing views.
Understanding survey methodology
Meanwhile, Mr. Freddie Kissoon’s critique in the state-owned media reveals mistaken facts relevant to his academic training and fundamental misunderstandings about research methodology. He confuses basic facts, citing wrong numbers and mischaracterising the nature of the initiative. A survey serves different purposes from a poll – it gathers detailed information and insights about specific issues rather than predicting population-wide views. Our exercise was explicitly designed as a consultative survey seeking informed stakeholder feedback about particular aspects of the Petroleum Agreement. The valuable responses received, including a detailed technical analysis of contract provisions, demonstrate the success of this approach.
Conclusion
The passionate reactions to this survey from high officials and their supporters suggest it has struck a nerve. The underlying message resonates clearly: there is substantial public concern about the Agreement’s terms, and these concerns cannot be dismissed through procedural objections or deflections about methodology.
Its findings present a critical test of our democratic principles. The Ali Administration’s resistance to discussing modifications to an Agreement that will shape Guyana’s fortunes for generations reveals a troubling gap between democratic rhetoric and practice. Their continued refusal to engage with these concerns suggests a deeply worrisome possibility: they fear what a genuinely informed and empowered electorate might decide about an Agreement that will shape Guyana’s destiny for the remainder of this century and beyond. Their resistance to democratic consultation raises the profound question of whether they truly serve the interests of the Guyanese people or other, less public interests.
