Author

guyanabusinessjournal

Guyana at the Crossroads: Beyond Tribalism Toward Competence

by guyanabusinessjournal August 31, 2025

written by guyanabusinessjournal

On September 1, 2025, Guyana goes to the polls. We do so at a moment of profound possibility and grave peril.

In her essay The Trouble with Tribes, Susan Fowler describes the Troxler effect: fix your gaze on a single red dot, and the surrounding blue circle disappears. Focus long enough, and everything beyond the dot fades away. This is the trap of tribalism. When we see only what benefits our group, we lose sight of the larger community. In Guyana, this narrowing of vision has already begun to unravel our families, our institutions, and our national fabric.

Guyana now sits atop an estimated eleven billion oil-equivalent barrels in the Stabroek Block. By year’s end, the Natural Resource Fund is projected to hold more than US $3 billion.

This wealth is not the property of one tribe, one party, or one government. It is the inheritance of every Guyanese citizen—a patrimony to be shared equitably.

The fundamental questions before us are clear:

How can Guyana’s energy resources be best used to improve lives and transform the country and region?

And how can we channel oil revenues into education, infrastructure, and public services while avoiding the failures of other petrostates?

These are not partisan questions.

They are national questions that demand open, rational, and independent dialogue.

In the Gospel of Luke (14:1, 7–14), Jesus, observing how guests scramble for places of honor, cautions: “When you are invited, do not sit down at the place of honor… For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. Instead, when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you.”

This parable strikes at the heart of Guyana’s political moment. Our oil wealth is the banquet. The temptation of our leaders is to seize the highest seat for their tribe, to distribute privilege only among loyalists, and to measure success in the currency of exclusion. But the Gospel calls us to humility and generosity: to widen the table, to invite those left outside, and to make belonging—not advantage—the true measure of leadership.

For too long, Guyanese politics has been trapped in the Machiavellian logic that “it is better to be feared than loved.” Yet even Machiavelli himself reminded leaders that the strongest fortress is the affection of the people. Fear divides. Affection builds.

Tomorrow, we must demand leaders who seek not just the loyalty of their tribe but also the affection of the Guyanese people as a whole. The psychological needs of choice, connection, and competence are real. Tribal identity gives us belonging. But belonging should not mean exclusion. Our leaders must resist the logic of “us versus them” and instead create the conditions for collaboration across our many tribes. Malaysia and Singapore show us that multiethnic governance is possible. Guyana must adapt such lessons to our own history and circumstances.

To envision Guyana as a single, multiracial, multiethnic tribe is not naïve—it is necessary. Competence, not ethnicity, must guide education, housing, and political priorities. The Sovereign Wealth Fund must become a forum for all Guyanese voices. As Guyana votes, the GBJ calls on every citizen and every leader to look beyond the red dot of tribal interest and toward the circle of national unity. Let us remember the wisdom of Luke: that the true measure of leadership is not who sits at the head table but who ensures that the poor, the marginalized, and the voiceless are welcomed into the feast.

Tomorrow, let us vote not as divided tribes but as one Guyanese people.

Read the original 2021 essay here

Guyana Business Journal

August 31, 2025

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

The Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board welcomes reflections and submissions at terrence.blackman@guyanabusinessjournal.com.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

August 31, 2025 0 comments

Cuffy Was No “House Slave”

by guyanabusinessjournal August 30, 2025

written by guyanabusinessjournal

When Attorney General Anil Nandlall recently referred to Cuffy, leader of the 1763 Berbice Rebellion, as a “proud and upstanding house slave,” he did more than misspeak. He diminished one of the most significant figures in the history of Black resistance in the Americas. At best, it was an unfortunate choice of words. At worst, it was a distortion of history that risks trivializing the sacrifices of thousands who fought and died for freedom on Guyanese soil.

The historical record tells a different story. In her prize-winning book, Blood on the River: A Chronicle of Mutiny and Freedom on the Wild Coast (2020), historian Marjoleine Kars reconstructs the Berbice rebellion in unprecedented detail. Drawing on newly discovered Dutch archives—especially the testimonies of enslaved men and women—Kars demonstrates that Cuffy was no servant to colonial masters. He was a revolutionary, an early leader of one of the largest and longest-lasting slave uprisings in Caribbean history.

In February 1763, Cuffy and his comrades rose against Dutch planters. They overran plantations, seized arms, and gained control of much of the colony. For more than a year, Berbice was engulfed in a struggle between the enslaved majority and the Dutch colonial regime. Cuffy sought to lead that struggle, organizing negotiations with the Dutch and attempting to chart a sustainable future for the enslaved. His letters, preserved in colonial archives, show not servility but strategy—a man navigating war, internal divisions, and the staggering brutality of a slave society.

To call such a leader a “house slave” is to erase both the scale of the uprising and the vision of freedom that animated it. Cuffy was not perfect—Kars’ book makes clear that tensions among the rebels were fierce. There were disagreements between African-born and Creole enslaved, between those who wanted negotiation and those who demanded total war. In the end, Cuffy himself was overtaken by rivals within the rebellion. But to reduce him to a caricature is to misunderstand the very essence of the Berbice uprising.

That essence was nothing less than a collective cry for liberty. Hundreds of enslaved Africans died in the fighting; many more were executed after the rebellion collapsed. They were not house servants. They were freedom fighters. Their rebellion was one of the most remarkable in the hemisphere before Haiti. And their memory remains a living resource for a Guyana still struggling with questions of justice, equity, and national identity.

Words matter. When leaders mischaracterize Cuffy, they do more than injure historical accuracy. They erode the dignity of Guyana’s past and the meaning of its struggles. We cannot afford to be careless with our heroes. The memory of the enslaved is fragile; too often, their voices were silenced in life and erased in death. To honor them requires precision, respect, and a genuine sense of humility.

Cuffy was not a house slave. He was a revolutionary. He symbolizes the refusal of Black people in Guyana to accept servitude as destiny. His story, as Kars shows, is complex, human, and imperfect—but it is also inspiring. It belongs not to colonial caricature but to a long tradition of resistance that still resonates today.

As Guyana navigates the promises and perils of oil wealth, as we debate equity and governance, the lessons of Cuffy and his comrades should weigh heavily on us. They remind us that freedom is never granted—it is fought for, and it is sustained only when justice stands at the center of national life.

Let us then speak of Cuffy with the reverence his memory demands. He was not a “house slave.” He was a leader, a revolutionary, and a symbol of resistance whose spirit still calls us to dignity and justice.

Please view an interview with Marjoleine Kars here

Guyana Business Journal

August 30, 2025

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board welcomes reflections and submissions at terrence.blackman@guyanabusinessjournal.com.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

August 30, 2025 2 comments

Editorial | Guyana Business Journal

by guyanabusinessjournal August 30, 2025

written by guyanabusinessjournal

At the Guyana Business Journal, our mission extends beyond mere commentary—we champion rigorously researched data-driven analysis that informs policy for a prosperous, inclusive, and democratic Guyana.

In this spirit, we offer this endorsement not as partisan advocacy but as an urgent call for leadership anchored in equity, national unity, and transformative economic justice at the most consequential moment in our nation’s history.

As Guyana experiences an unprecedented oil boom—with production reaching 650,000 barrels per day in 2024 and projected to exceed 1.3 million barrels per day by 2027—we stand at a crossroads that will define our national character for generations. With over $12 billion in oil revenues projected for 2025–2028 alone, and our nation now ranking among the world’s highest in per-capita oil reserves, the fundamental question is not how much wealth we can generate, but whether we possess the moral courage to share it justly.

The stakes could not be higher.

Will the benefits of this historic windfall cascade through every village, hinterland community, and urban ward, lifting those who have waited centuries for their fair share?

Or will they pool in familiar corridors of privilege, perpetuating the very inequalities that have scarred our society since colonial times?

Will emancipation’s unfinished promise and independence’s unrealized potential finally find fulfillment, or will we squander this third founding moment through the politics of division and exclusion?

In Aubrey Norton, we find a candidate who speaks directly to these defining questions with the authenticity of lived experience and the wisdom of principled leadership. His vision represents more than political change—it embodies a path toward the radical transformation that our oil wealth now makes possible.

Norton’s emphasis on equity over equality is not a rhetorical flourish but a policy grounded in Guyana’s painful history of exclusion. Despite unprecedented economic growth—with GDP expanding dramatically since 2018—wealth distribution remains stubbornly uneven.

While 48.4 percent of our population still lives on less than $5.50 per day—down from 60.9 percent in 2006—this still represents nearly half our citizens. Rural and interior communities continue to lack access to basic services that urban elites take for granted.

In Norton’s articulation, equity means more than fair outcomes—it means designing systems that acknowledge our disparate starting points and ensuring that those historically marginalized are not merely compensated but genuinely empowered to shape their destinies.

This is not abstract policy theory but an urgent moral imperative. In a nation blessed with some of the world’s largest per-capita oil reserves, no child should face poverty rates approaching 50 percent. No community should lack access to clean water, reliable electricity, or quality healthcare while billions of dollars flow into government coffers. No citizen should feel excluded from the national conversation about how to deploy the most significant economic opportunity in our history.

Norton has demonstrated the kind of leadership this moment demands. He has called for a government that listens rather than lectures, one that serves rather than rules.

In town halls across our diverse nation, he has engaged communities on the issues that matter most to working families—not with the condescension of political theater, but with the respect of genuine consultation. His vision encompasses the strategic deployment of oil revenues not merely for large-scale infrastructure that benefits connected contractors, but also for direct poverty reduction through investments in youth, education, healthcare, small business development, and community ownership—investments that can create lasting prosperity beyond the oil era.

These positions address both the moral architecture of a society still scarred by ethnic mistrust and the practical urgency of ensuring that Guyana’s oil wealth fosters shared prosperity rather than deeper inequality. They confront the fundamental challenge of transforming a nation where children still face poverty, despite being situated atop one of the world’s most valuable natural resource endowments.

At a time when elections risk becoming referenda on ethnic loyalty rather than policy substance, Norton represents something genuinely different—a candidate campaigning on ideas rather than identity, on vision rather than grievance. He has advocated for governance reforms that prioritize transparency and accountability over political patronage.

He has challenged our national imagination by asking the essential question: What kind of society do we wish to become? Not merely economically more prosperous, but more just, more united, and more humane.

While Norton faces significant electoral challenges against incumbent President Irfaan Ali, we believe his message of equity and inclusive governance addresses fundamental issues that transcend electoral calculations. The questions he raises about how we distribute opportunity and wealth will remain urgent regardless of who occupies the State House.

More importantly, his candidacy represents a crucial test of whether Guyanese politics can evolve beyond its historical divisions toward a more mature democracy worthy of our newfound prosperity.

To be clear, this endorsement comes with expectations as high as our hopes.

Should Norton ascend to the presidency, we expect him to uphold the principles he has articulated with such clarity and conviction. We expect him to build a Cabinet not of loyalists and party functionaries, but of technocrats, reformers, and community leaders drawn from across Guyana’s vibrant mosaic.

We insist that poverty eradication, job creation, and the equitable distribution of oil wealth remain at the center of the national agenda, not as campaign slogans to be forgotten after victory, but as measurable benchmarks against which his administration will be judged by history.

We expect him to harness the unprecedented resources at Guyana’s disposal—with oil revenues projected to generate over $150 billion in the coming decades—for transformative investments in human capital, sustainable infrastructure, and economic diversification that will secure prosperity long after the last barrel is extracted from our seabed.

This is not merely about managing wealth, but about building the foundations of a modern, equitable society that can serve as a model for the developing world.

In endorsing Aubrey Norton, we affirm our belief that Guyana can be governed differently and better.

That the vast promise of our oil era can be translated into tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary Guyanese families. That the dream of a truly inclusive and democratic society is not a utopian fantasy, but a political and moral imperative within our reach—if we dare to seize it.

We endorse Norton not because victory is assured—indeed, the path ahead is challenging—but because his vision for equitable development represents the moral imperative of this historic moment.

As Guyana stands at this crossroads, with oil revenues projected to reshape our nation’s destiny for generations, the question is not whether we will be wealthy, but whether we will be just.

We believe Norton understands this profound responsibility.

We believe he possesses the integrity, experience, and vision to lead us toward the more perfect union that our oil wealth now makes possible.

The choice before us is clear: we can continue with politics as usual, allowing our historic opportunity to be squandered through division and short-sighted thinking, or we can embrace the transformative leadership that this moment demands.

We believe, and the evidence strongly suggests that Aubrey Norton is prepared to lead that transformation.

The question is whether we are prepared to follow.

Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board

August 2025

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board welcomes reflections and submissions at terrence.blackman@guyanabusinessjournal.com.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

August 30, 2025 0 comments

The Ballot Battle: Why FGM’s Last-Minute Court Challenge Could Reshape Guyana’s Election

by guyanabusinessjournal August 20, 2025

written by guyanabusinessjournal

Less than two weeks before Guyana’s September 1 General and Regional Elections, the Forward Guyana Movement has taken the Guyana Elections Commission to court in a constitutional challenge that could fundamentally alter the country’s election process. The case, filed by FGM leader Amanza Walton-Desir, raises a deceptively simple question with profound implications: Should political parties that qualify for elections appear on ballots in all regions, even where they’re not contesting local seats?

FGM has met all legal requirements to participate in the September 1 elections by contesting in more than six regions and competing for at least 13 of the 25 regional seats. However, GECOM has excluded FGM from ballots in Regions 7, 8, and 9—areas where the party is not contesting the regional seats. This exclusion, FGM argues, violates the constitutional rights of voters in those regions and distorts the mathematical foundation of Guyana’s electoral system. “This court challenge is not just about a technicality; it is about giving the people of Guyana the knowledge and the fair choices they need to make the right decision come September 1,” FGM stated in their court filing.

To understand why this matters, one must grasp how Guyana’s unique electoral system works. When you cast your ballot, you’re voting twice: once for 25 regional seats distributed among Guyana’s 10 administrative regions based on population, and once for 40 national “top-up” seats allocated based on your party’s total votes across the entire country. This dual system means your vote counts for both your local representative and for determining how many seats your preferred party receives in the National Assembly overall.

The significance of this dual structure became clear in the 2020 election, where APNU+AFC won more regional seats than PPP/C—13 versus 12—but PPP/C’s stronger national vote total earned them more top-up seats, giving them control of Parliament with a total of 33 seats. This mathematical interplay between regional and national calculations lies at the heart of FGM’s constitutional challenge.

FGM’s exclusion from certain regional ballots creates what electoral experts refer to as an “artificial vote ceiling.” In regions where FGM appears on ballots, votes count toward both the regional contest and the national top-up calculation. But in Regions 7, 8, and 9, potential FGM supporters cannot vote for the party at all—not even for the national list. This matters because Guyana uses the Hare-Quota system to allocate seats, dividing the total valid votes by the number of seats available. Even small vote totals can influence remainder calculations that determine final seat allocation.

Consider this scenario: If FGM received just 1,000 votes each in Regions 7, 8, and 9, that would be 3,000 additional votes toward their national total. In tight elections, such numbers can mean the difference between winning a seat in Parliament or getting shut out entirely. The mathematical precision required by the Hare Quota system makes every vote potentially decisive in determining the final composition of the National Assembly.

The constitutional challenge takes on added significance because Regions 7, 8, and 9 are predominantly inhabited by Guyana’s Indigenous Amerindian population. FGM argues that excluding parties from these regions amounts to discrimination based on race and place of origin. “Excluding parties in these regions disproportionately burdens Amerindian voters, amounting to discrimination on the grounds of race and place of origin,” the court filing states. This creates a two-tier system where Indigenous voters in the interior have fewer electoral choices than coastal voters—a disparity that could violate fundamental constitutional principles of equal treatment.

GECOM has historically only included party names on ballots in regions where they contest geographic seats. This practice, while administratively simpler, may not align with the constitutional requirements of Guyana’s proportional representation system. The Representation of the People Act requires parties to contest at least six regions to qualify for elections, but it doesn’t explicitly address whether qualified parties must appear on all regional ballots for national list purposes. This ambiguity has created the legal opening that FGM is now exploiting through the courts.

FGM’s legal team, led by Dr. Vivan Williams of VMW Law, is seeking urgent relief that would declare unconstitutional any elections held without full party inclusion, restrain GECOM from excluding qualified parties from national ballots, direct immediate inclusion of FGM in Regions 7, 8, and 9 ballots, and ensure equal participation for voters in all regions. The scope of this relief could necessitate fundamental changes to how GECOM administers elections, potentially affecting ballot design, voter education, and counting procedures nationwide.

This case could establish crucial precedents for Guyana’s democratic future. If FGM prevails, it could force GECOM to redesign ballots and alter vote-counting procedures for current and future elections. If GECOM’s position is upheld, it could cement a practice that effectively creates different classes of electoral participation based on geography. The timing adds urgency to an already complex situation, as any court ruling could require last-minute changes to electoral procedures just days before voting begins.

As Guyana enters its oil-rich future, ensuring equal democratic participation becomes more than a legal technicality—it’s a foundation for national unity and legitimate governance. The country’s newfound petroleum wealth makes inclusive representation crucial for managing resources and maintaining social cohesion across diverse communities. The mathematical precision of the Hare Quota system, which governs seat allocation, stands in stark contrast to the constitutional ambiguities this case seeks to resolve.

The High Court must now balance competing constitutional principles: administrative efficiency versus democratic inclusion, regional autonomy versus national representation, and practical electoral management versus theoretical constitutional rights. For voters in Regions 7, 8, and 9, the outcome could determine whether they have the same electoral choices as their fellow citizens in other parts of Guyana. For FGM, it could mean the difference between parliamentary representation and political irrelevance.

Whether the courts side with FGM’s expansive interpretation of electoral rights or GECOM’s restrictive administrative approach will help define the boundaries of democratic participation in South America’s newest oil power. As one constitutional expert noted, “This case forces us to confront fundamental questions about what constitutes fair and equal electoral participation in a complex democratic system.” The resolution will likely influence not only the immediate September 1 election but also the long-term development of Guyana’s democratic institutions as the country navigates its transformation into a major oil producer.

FGM’s constitutional challenge ultimately highlights the tension between administrative convenience and democratic inclusion in Guyana’s sophisticated electoral system. The court’s decision could significantly reshape how the country conducts elections and ensure equal representation for all Guyanese, regardless of their place of residence. In a nation where mathematical precision determines political power through the Hare Quota system, the exclusion of qualified parties from any regional ballot represents not just a procedural irregularity but a fundamental distortion of the democratic process that the constitution was designed to protect.

This analysis is based on court filings, constitutional documents, and research on electoral systems. The case remains pending before the High Court.

Guyana Business Journal

Aug 20, 2025

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board welcomes reflections and submissions at terrence.blackman@guyanabusinessjournal.com.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

Thank you for standing with us.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman

Guyana Business Journal

August 20, 2025 0 comments

GBJ Comprehensive Fact-Check Report: Guyana Labour Market Achievements and Outlook Presentation

by guyanabusinessjournal August 20, 2025

written by guyanabusinessjournal

Date: August 19, 2025
Subject: “Guyana Job Creation & Labour Market Outlook (2021–2030)” by Joel Bhagwandin
Assessment Type: GBJ Independent Fact-Check Analysis

Simulive_Presentation_Labour Market Achievements and outlook (2)

Executive Summary

This Guyana Business Journal comprehensive fact-check analysis examines the claims made in Joel Bhagwandin’s presentation about Guyana’s labour market performance between 2021 and 2025. The presentation asserts that over 70,000 sustainable jobs were created, surpassing the government’s target of 50,000 jobs. Through extensive research involving government sources, civil society analysis, international data, and independent verification, this report finds the claims to be partially credible but potentially misleading.

The core issue lies not in outright fabrication of data, but in the conflation of different types of employment activities, including training programs, part-time work, and job restoration, under the umbrella term of “job creation.” While the methodology employed is generally sound and uses legitimate data sources, the heavy reliance on extrapolation and the absence of independent verification raise questions about the precision of the claimed figures.

Background and Context

Guyana has experienced unprecedented economic growth since the discovery of oil, with GDP expanding by approximately 44% in 2024 alone. This economic boom has created significant expectations for job creation and labour market improvements. The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government, led by President Mohamed Irfaan Ali, committed to creating 50,000 new jobs in their 2020 manifesto, making employment generation a key political promise.

The presentation under review was created by Joel Bhagwandin, a finance executive and strategic advisor associated with SPHEREX Professional Services Inc., who is currently pursuing a PhD in Financial Management at Edinburgh Napier University (LinkedIn Profile, 2025). Bhagwandin’s analysis has been cited by official government sources, including the Department of Public Information, lending it significant political weight in ongoing debates about the government’s economic performance.

Methodology of Investigation

This fact-check employed a multi-source verification approach, examining government claims against civil society criticism, international data, and independent sources. The investigation involved accessing official government publications, opposition analyses, international organization reports, and various government ministry announcements to build a comprehensive picture of Guyana’s labour market performance.

Key sources included the Department of Public Information (DPI, 2025a, 2025b), Stabroek News (2025), Democracy Guyana (2025), analyses by civil society activists, International Labour Organization documents (ILO, 2025), and various government ministry announcements. The investigation also examined the credentials and methodology of the presentation’s author to assess the reliability of the analysis.

Detailed Findings and Analysis

The presentation’s central claim of creating over 70,000 sustainable jobs between 2021 and 2025 represents a significant assertion that requires scrutiny. The figure is derived through what Bhagwandin terms “evidence-based extrapolation,” using the 2021 Q3 Guyana Labour Force Survey as a baseline and incorporating data from the National Insurance Scheme, Bank of Guyana estimates, and sectoral performance indicators (Democracy Guyana, 2025).

The National Insurance Scheme data, which shows 67,905 new employee registrations between the ages of 16 and 59, provides the most concrete foundation for the employment claims. This administrative data is generally reliable, as NIS registration is mandatory for formal employment in Guyana. The close consistency between the presentation’s figure (67,905) and the government’s official statement (67,900) suggests this data point is accurate and represents genuine formal sector employment growth (DPI, 2025a).

However, the presentation’s sectoral breakdown reveals significant methodological concerns. The construction sector is credited with 30,000 jobs based on over 6,300 public contracts, using an assumption of five jobs per project. While the 180% growth in the construction sector appears to be supported by multiple sources, including social media posts (Sheriff Guyana Facebook, 2025; GNBS_GY Instagram, 2025) and government announcements, the job multiplier of approximately 4.7 jobs per contract lacks independent verification and may overestimate actual employment creation.

The housing sector claim of 25,000 jobs is linked to a 70% increase in residential mortgages from G$90 billion in 2020 to G$153 billion in 2024. This correlation is supported by President Ali’s recent announcement that 30,000 new homes will be built in the next five years, creating 150,000 jobs (DPI, 2025b). Using this ratio of five jobs per home, the construction of 5,000 homes would indeed generate approximately 25,000 jobs, lending credibility to this particular claim.

The agriculture sector presents the most problematic aspect of the job creation narrative. The presentation claims 75,572 persons benefited from training and capacity-building programs, but this figure conflates actual job creation with educational and training activities. The detailed breakdown includes 461 graduates equipped with agribusiness skills, 44,160 farmers trained in sustainable practices, 673 farmers certified for export production, 761 farmers trained in aquaculture, and 29,517 licenses processed by the fisheries department (Ministry of Agriculture, 2025). While these activities represent valuable human capital development, they do not necessarily constitute job creation in the traditional sense.

The tourism and hospitality sector’s contribution of 7,300 jobs appears more straightforward, supported by the addition of 60 new tourism products (DPI, 2025a). However, no independent verification of this figure was found during the investigation, making it difficult to assess its accuracy.

The transport sector calculation is based on approximately 20,000 new hire car and minibus registrations, with an assumption that 50% represent new drivers rather than vehicle replacements. This methodology yields 10,000 new drivers, plus an additional 11,000 truck drivers, totaling 21,000 transport sector jobs. While vehicle registration data is typically reliable, the 50% assumption lacks empirical support and may overestimate actual employment creation.

Civil Society Criticism and Alternative Analysis

The presentation’s claims have faced significant criticism from civil society activists, including Janette Bulkan, Andre Brandli, Alfred Bhulai, Kenrick Hunte, Darshanand Khusial, and Joe Persaud. Their analysis, published in Stabroek News (2025), employed World Bank country profile data and Bank of Guyana annual reports, using International Labour Organization models to estimate employment levels.

The civil society analysis concluded that employment may have increased by only 20,200 from 2020 to 2025, a figure dramatically lower than the government’s claims. Their methodology involved calculating the employed persons as the labour force multiplied by (100 minus the percentage unemployed) divided by 100, using ILO-based unemployment estimates. This approach yielded employment figures of 265,600 in 2020 and 268,800 in 2021, which reasonably matched Bureau of Statistics figures of 251,000 in 2020 and 264,900 in 2021 (Stabroek News, 2025).

The civil society critics identified 24,467 verifiable jobs from three specific government programs: 15,283 in the part-time Pathways project paying $40,000 per month, 2,700 Amerindian Community Support Officers, and 6,484 in the ENGAGE project. Crucially, they noted that none of these programs offers full-time employment, highlighting a fundamental definitional issue in the debate over job creation (Stabroek News, 2025).

The critics argued that the government is “doubling the verifiable data” and including part-time, discretionary employment in a manner that suggests governance “by the seat-of-its-pants” rather than evidence-based policy making. They called for more analytical and evidence-based government approaches, particularly given that 37% of the national budget comes from oil revenues (Stabroek News, 2025).

Government Response and Official Position

The government has consistently defended its job creation claims through official channels, particularly the Department of Public Information. A June 2025 DPI article confirmed that “more than 70,000 sustainable jobs have been created through well-crafted government investment and economic policies in various sectors, including education, infrastructure, housing, health, and tourism” (DPI, 2025a).

The official government position, as articulated through DPI, explicitly cites Joel Bhagwandin’s SphereX Market Insights and Analysis report as the source of these figures. This creates a circular reference problem, where the presentation being fact-checked is simultaneously the source of official government claims about job creation performance.

The government’s defense acknowledges limitations in the analysis, noting that the employment figures “do not fully account for expatriate and part-time workers” and that some sectors, like manufacturing and non-oil services, were excluded from the analysis.” The government also responds to “criticisms from overseas-based academics who questioned the employment figures” by highlighting “the limitations of outdated data and the need to consider more recent developments in the country” (DPI, 2025a).

President Ali’s recent housing sector announcements provide additional context for the government’s claims. His forecast of 30,000 new homes over the next five years, generating 150,000 jobs and injecting $450 billion into the economy, demonstrates the scale of the government’s development ambitions. The announcement that nearly 53,000 residential house lots and 5,000 commercial lots have been allocated over the past five years supports claims of significant activity in the housing sector (DPI, 2025b; Guyana Times, 2025).

Data Source Validation and Methodological Assessment

The presentation’s methodology relies on three primary data sources: the 2021 Q3 Guyana Labour Force Survey, Bank of Guyana labour force and population estimates, and National Insurance Scheme registration data. Each of these sources has different strengths and limitations that affect the overall credibility of the analysis.

The 2021 Q3 Guyana Labour Force Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Statistics, represents the most recent comprehensive labour market data available for Guyana. An International Labour Organization document confirms this survey as “the latest available labour force data” as of 2025, indicating that more recent comprehensive data is not available (ILO, 2025). This limitation necessitates the use of extrapolation techniques to estimate current employment levels, introducing uncertainty into the analysis.

The Bank of Guyana data provides macroeconomic context and population estimates that help validate the Labour Force Survey findings. According to the central bank’s data, this information is generally considered reliable for macroeconomic analysis. The presentation’s use of variance analysis between these two sources represents a reasonable approach to data triangulation (Democracy Guyana, 2025).

The National Insurance Scheme registration data offers the most concrete evidence of formal sector employment growth. With 67,905 new employee registrations between the ages of 16 and 59 from 2021 to 2025, this administrative data provides a solid foundation for employment claims. The NIS system’s mandatory nature for formal employment makes this data particularly valuable for tracking employment trends.

Joel Bhagwandin’s credentials as the analysis author include his role as a finance executive and strategic advisor at SPHEREX Professional Services Inc., in addition to his ongoing PhD studies in Financial Management at Edinburgh Napier University (LinkedIn Profile, 2025). These qualifications suggest relevant expertise in economic analysis and financial modeling, lending credibility to his methodological approach.

The presentation’s methodology demonstrates several strengths, including the use of multiple official data sources, transparency about limitations and assumptions, and the application of triangulation techniques to validate findings. The conservative approach of excluding manufacturing and informal sector jobs from the analysis suggests an attempt to avoid overestimation.

However, the methodology also reveals significant weaknesses. The heavy reliance on extrapolation from 3-year-old baseline data introduces substantial uncertainty. The use of assumed multipliers for sectoral job creation, such as five jobs per construction contract, lacks empirical validation. The conflation of training programs with actual job creation inflates the overall figures and misrepresents the nature of employment growth.

Economic Context and Plausibility Assessment

Guyana’s extraordinary economic growth provides an important context for evaluating job creation claims. With GDP expanding by approximately 44% in 2024 and the International Monetary Fund projecting average annual growth of 14% over the next five years, the country is experiencing unprecedented economic expansion driven by oil production and associated investments.

This economic boom creates conditions conducive to significant job creation across multiple sectors. The construction industry’s 180% growth between 2020 and 2024, while impressive, aligns with visible infrastructure development and housing expansion throughout the country (Sheriff Guyana Facebook, 2025). The decline in the unemployment rate from 14% in 2023 to 10.2% in 2024, as reported by Trading Economics, supports claims of improving labour market conditions.

The oil and gas sector’s contribution to employment, while not the primary focus of the presentation, provides additional context. ExxonMobil’s reported employment of 6,100 Guyanese workers, representing 70% of the local workforce in the sector, demonstrates significant direct employment creation. President Ali’s claims of over 6,500 new jobs in the oil and gas sector, with spin-off jobs representing more than half that amount, suggest broader economic multiplier effects.

The housing sector’s performance appears particularly robust, with President Ali’s announcement of $870 billion in housing-related investments over the next five years indicating massive planned expenditure (DPI, 2025b). The allocation of nearly 53,000 house lots over the past five years, combined with the 70% increase in residential mortgages, supports claims of significant housing sector activity and associated employment creation.

However, the scale of claimed job creation raises questions about labour market capacity and wage effects. Creating 70,000 new jobs in a country with a total population of approximately 800,000 represents a substantial increase in employment levels. If accurate, this would represent nearly a 9% increase in the total population’s employment status, a remarkable achievement that would typically be accompanied by significant wage pressures and skills shortages.

Comparative Analysis and International Context

Comparing Guyana’s claimed job creation performance with international benchmarks provides perspective on the plausibility of the figures. The assertion of creating 70,000 jobs over four years in a small economy represents an annual job creation rate of approximately 2.2% of the total population, a figure that would be considered exceptional by international standards.

Small island developing states and resource-rich economies provide the most relevant comparisons for Guyana’s experience. Countries experiencing oil booms typically see significant employment growth, but the magnitude of Guyana’s claimed performance exceeds most historical precedents when adjusted for population size.

The International Labour Organization’s broader Caribbean labour market analysis indicates that most regional economies struggled with employment creation during the post-COVID period (ILO, 2025). Guyana’s claimed performance stands out dramatically from regional trends, which typically showed employment stagnation or modest growth during 2021-2025.

The civil society critics’ estimate of 20,200 net job creation aligns more closely with typical post-recession recovery patterns and regional economic performance (Stabroek News, 2025). This figure represents approximately 2.5% of the total population over four years, or about 0.6% annually, which falls within normal ranges for developing economies experiencing moderate growth.

The discrepancy between government claims and civil society estimates highlights fundamental disagreements about employment measurement and definition. The government’s inclusion of training programs, part-time work, and job restoration inflates the figures significantly compared to traditional employment statistics that focus on full-time job creation.

Implications and Broader Significance

The debate over Guyana’s job creation performance extends beyond statistical accuracy to encompass broader questions about economic governance, political accountability, and development strategy. The government’s claims serve critical political functions, demonstrating progress on key electoral promises and justifying continued policy approaches.

However, the conflation of different types of employment activities under the “job creation” umbrella risks misleading the public’s understanding of actual labor market improvements. Training programs and capacity building, while valuable for human capital development, do not provide the immediate income generation and economic security that traditional employment offers.

The heavy reliance on extrapolation and assumed multipliers in the government’s analysis reflects broader challenges in collecting and analyzing economic data in developing countries. Limited statistical capacity and infrequent comprehensive surveys necessitate creative approaches to economic measurement, but these methods introduce significant uncertainty into policy evaluation.

The circular reference between the presentation and official government claims raises concerns about the independence of economic analysis and the potential for confirmation bias in policy evaluation (DPI, 2025a). When the same analysis serves as both the source of government claims and the basis for defending those claims, the credibility of the entire exercise becomes questionable.

The international attention focused on Guyana’s economic performance, driven by its oil discoveries and rapid growth, makes accurate employment data particularly important for attracting investment and managing development partnerships. Overstated employment claims could erode credibility with international partners and investors, who rely on accurate economic data for informed decision-making.

Limitations of This Analysis

This fact-check analysis faces several limitations that should be acknowledged. The absence of comprehensive, recent labour market data from official sources limits the ability to definitively verify employment claims. The Bureau of Statistics’ lack of updated unemployment and labour force statistics, as noted in the Stabroek News article (2025), creates an information vacuum that both government and critics attempt to fill through estimation and extrapolation.

Access to detailed administrative data from government agencies, including complete NIS registration records, sectoral employment statistics, and comprehensive program participation data, would significantly enhance the accuracy of this analysis. Although the reliance on publicly available information and media reports is extensive, it cannot substitute for access to primary government data sources.

The complexity of defining and measuring employment in developing economies, particularly regarding informal sector work, part-time employment, and subsistence activities, creates inherent challenges in employment analysis. Different stakeholders may legitimately employ different definitions and measurement approaches, resulting in varying conclusions about the same underlying economic phenomena.

The political sensitivity of employment data in Guyana, given its importance for government credibility and electoral prospects, may influence the availability and presentation of information from various sources. Both government and opposition sources have political incentives that may affect their analysis and presentation of employment data.

Recommendations

Based on this comprehensive GBJ fact-check analysis, the presentation’s claims about Guyana’s job creation performance are assessed as partially credible but potentially misleading. The core statistical claims are not fabricated, and the methodology employed demonstrates reasonable analytical approaches using legitimate data sources. However, the conflation of different types of employment activities and the heavy reliance on extrapolation create significant concerns about the accuracy and interpretation of the figures.

The most reliable evidence suggests that formal sector employment has indeed increased significantly, as demonstrated by the 67,905 new NIS registrations (DPI, 2025a). This administrative data provides concrete evidence of employment growth and represents the most credible element of the government’s claims. The housing and construction sector activity appears substantial and likely has generated significant employment, though the precise job multipliers used in the analysis lack independent verification.

The claims made by the agriculture sector are the most problematic, as they conflate training and capacity-building programs with actual job creation (Ministry of Agriculture, 2025). While these programs provide valuable human capital development, they should not be presented as a substitute for employment generation. This conflation significantly inflates the overall job creation figures and misrepresents the nature of labour market improvements.

The transport sector calculations, based on vehicle registration assumptions, represent reasonable estimates but lack empirical validation. The tourism sector claims, while specific, could not be independently verified through available sources.

The civil society criticism provides a valuable alternative perspective and highlights significant methodological concerns (Stabroek News, 2025). Their estimate of 20,200 net job creation, while significantly lower than government claims, may undercount informal sector employment and the full scope of government employment initiatives. The actual figure is likely to fall between the civil society estimate and the government’s claims, possibly within the range of 30,000 to 50,000 jobs when using consistent definitions and measurement approaches.

For future employment analysis and policy evaluation, several recommendations emerge from this investigation. Government statistical agencies should prioritize regular, comprehensive labour force surveys to provide current, reliable baseline data for policy analysis. Clear definitions and consistent measurement approaches should be established for employment statistics, distinguishing between full-time job creation, part-time employment, training programs, and capacity-building initiatives.

Independent verification of government employment claims through academic institutions, international organizations, or civil society groups would enhance credibility and public trust in economic data. Transparency in methodology, assumptions, and data sources should be maintained in all government economic analysis, with clear acknowledgment of limitations and uncertainties.

The broader lesson from this analysis concerns the importance of rigorous, independent economic analysis in democratic governance. While the presentation demonstrates competent analytical skills and uses legitimate data sources, its adoption as official government policy without independent verification raises concerns about the quality of economic policy evaluation in Guyana.

Ultimately, this fact-check reveals a complex situation where technical accuracy coexists with potential misrepresentation. The presentation’s claims are not entirely false, but their interpretation and presentation may mislead public understanding of Guyana’s actual labour market performance. This nuanced conclusion reflects the challenges inherent in fact-checking complex economic claims in data-limited environments, where the line between legitimate analysis and political advocacy can become blurred.

References

Democracy Guyana. (2025, August 18). Guyana’s Labour Market Expansion (2021-2025). Retrieved from https://democracyguyana.com/guyanas-labour-market-expansion-2021-2025/

Department of Public Information. (2025a, June 13). Government’s job creation efforts surpass target, expectations. Retrieved from https://dpi.gov.gy/governments-job-creation-efforts-surpass-target-expectations/

Department of Public Information. (2025b, August 14). President Ali forecasts 30,000 new homes to be built in next five years. Retrieved from https://dpi.gov.gy/president-ali-forecasts-30000-new-homes-to-be-built-in-next-five-years/

GNBS_GY Instagram. (2025, January 16). Empowering Guyanese Entrepreneurs! A 180% boost in grant support (2020-2024). Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/gnbs_gy/p/DE46HkVzt3o/?hl=ml

Guyana Times. (2025, August 14). $870B investment to construct 30k homes, open up lands in next 5 years – President Ali. Retrieved from https://guyanatimesgy.com/870b-investment-to-construct-30k-homes-open-up-lands-in-next-5-years-pres-ali/

International Labour Organization. (2025, June). Guyana Decent Work Country Programme 2025-2030. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2025-06/Guyana%20DWCP%202025-30.pdf

LinkedIn Profile. (2025). Joel Bhagwandin – Finance Executive | Strategic Advisor | PhD student in Financial Management. Retrieved from https://gy.linkedin.com/in/joel-bhagwandin-57481470

Ministry of Agriculture, Guyana. (2025, January 13). Guyana Agri Investment Prospectus 2024. Retrieved from https://agriculture.gov.gy/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Guyana-Agri-Investment-Prospectus-2024.pdf

Sheriff Guyana Facebook. (2025, March 3). Construction sector growth statistics. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1061490109120099&id=100057773602247&set=a.546759967259785

Stabroek News. (2025, August 18). Still no evidence from PPP/C that 50,000 jobs created. Retrieved from https://www.stabroeknews.com/2025/08/18/news/guyana/still-no-evidence-from-ppp-c-that-50000-jobs-created/

Guyana Business Journal

Aug 19, 2025

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board welcomes reflections and submissions at terrence.blackman@guyanabusinessjournal.com.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

Thank you for standing with us.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman

Guyana Business Journal

August 20, 2025 0 comments

Transformative Vision: Why APNU’s Bold Manifesto Offers Guyana’s Best Path Forward

by guyanabusinessjournal August 19, 2025

written by guyanabusinessjournal

The 2025 electoral choice presents Guyanese voters with a fundamental decision between incremental progress and transformative change. While both the APNU Coalition and PPP offer viable paths forward, a comprehensive analysis reveals that APNU’s “People-Centred Development Strategy” represents a more ambitious, comprehensive, and ultimately more effective approach to addressing Guyana’s development challenges. The Coalition’s manifesto demonstrates superior vision in eliminating poverty, transforming the business climate, and fostering long-term economic competitiveness, offering the potential for breakthrough progress that could position Guyana as a regional leader in inclusive development.

The fundamental strength of APNU’s approach lies in its recognition that Guyana’s oil wealth presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to eliminate poverty and transform the economy within a single electoral term. While the PPP’s incremental approach may appear safer, it fails to match the scale of intervention with the magnitude of the opportunity. APNU’s commitment to guaranteeing every household a livable income represents visionary leadership that could position Guyana as a global model for resource-wealth distribution. The Coalition’s comprehensive cash transfer system—providing $ 100,000 or more annually to every adult, $120,000 per school-age child, and $50,000 monthly to students—would create immediate, measurable poverty alleviation. This approach recognizes that poverty is fundamentally about insufficient income and addresses it directly, rather than relying on the hope that economic growth will eventually trickle down to the poorest households. The mathematical impact is undeniable: most households would see their incomes double or triple within the first year of implementation.

APNU’s business development strategy demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the structural barriers that have historically constrained private sector growth in Guyana. The proposed reduction in corporate tax rates from 40% to 20-30% represents the most significant business-friendly reform in Caribbean political history, potentially making Guyana the region’s most competitive jurisdiction for investment. This bold tax policy, combined with the establishment of a Development and Investment Bank, addresses the two most critical constraints facing businesses: excessive taxation and limited access to affordable credit. The Coalition’s financial sector modernization agenda, including expanded stock market operations, a junior market for SME financing, and measures to narrow interest rate spreads, demonstrates comprehensive thinking about capital market development. These reforms would fundamentally transform how businesses access capital and could unlock entrepreneurship and innovation that the current financial system’s limitations have constrained.

In contrast, while the PPP’s track record of removing 200+ taxes is commendable, their approach lacks the boldness necessary to position Guyana competitively in an increasingly globalized economy. The PPP’s more incremental approach to improving the business climate may preserve stability, but it sacrifices the transformative potential that APNU’s comprehensive reforms offer. The Coalition’s energy strategy demonstrates a superior long-term vision compared to PPP’s more limited focus on gas-to-energy. While the PPP’s 50% electricity tariff reduction is beneficial, APNU’s comprehensive renewable energy transformation, smart grid development, and commitment to net-zero emissions within 10-15 years position Guyana to capitalize on global trends toward clean energy and climate resilience. This approach could attract substantial green investment and position Guyana as a leader in sustainable development.

The Coalition’s infrastructure vision—including coast-to-hinterland highways, inter-regional connectivity, light rail systems, and the reintroduction of Guyana Airways—demonstrates ambitious thinking about national development. These investments would reduce regional inequalities, improve market access for businesses, and create the connectivity necessary for balanced national development. The proposal to establish a professionally managed state construction firm demonstrates innovative thinking about building domestic capacity while potentially reducing infrastructure costs. This comprehensive approach to infrastructure development far exceeds the PPP’s more limited focus on completing existing projects, demonstrating the kind of forward-thinking leadership that transformative development requires.

The poverty reduction comparison reveals the most significant advantage of APNU’s approach. While the PPP’s strategy may achieve a gradual reduction in poverty of 2-3 percentage points annually, APNU’s comprehensive transfer system could reduce poverty by 20-30 percentage points within the first two years. This difference is not merely quantitative but qualitative—APNU offers poverty elimination while PPP offers poverty reduction. The transformative impact of APNU’s approach extends beyond immediate income effects. By guaranteeing livable incomes, the Coalition would create conditions for improved health, education, and social outcomes that compound over time. Children whose families are lifted out of poverty through guaranteed income support are more likely to complete education, access healthcare, and develop the human capital necessary for long-term economic participation.

Critics may raise concerns about the fiscal sustainability of APNU’s ambitious spending commitments, but these concerns often underestimate both Guyana’s resource wealth and the Coalition’s comprehensive approach to revenue enhancement. The 20-point oil sector agenda, including contract renegotiation and the establishment of an autonomous Petroleum Commission, could significantly increase government revenues. The Coalition’s projection of extracting “up to 30% more on every dollar” through reduced corruption and waste reflects realistic potential given the well-documented inefficiencies in current government operations. Moreover, the economic stimulus effects of massive cash transfers could generate substantial indirect revenues through increased consumption, business activity, and increased participation in the formal sector. The increased purchasing power would drive demand across all sectors of the economy, potentially creating a virtuous cycle of growth that supports the sustainability of transfer programs.

The PPP’s emphasis on fiscal conservatism, while prudent, may represent greater long-term risk by failing to capitalize on the current oil revenue opportunity. Conservative management of extraordinary resources could result in missed opportunities for transformative development that may not recur. APNU’s approach to technological development and innovation, while less detailed than some aspects of their manifesto, demonstrates an understanding of future economic trends. The emphasis on telecommunications infrastructure, digital connectivity, and modern financial systems creates enabling conditions for digital economy development. The Coalition’s commitment to education reform and skills development would complement technological infrastructure to position Guyana competitively in knowledge-based industries.

The PPP’s innovation strategy, while more detailed in some respects, lacks the comprehensive economic transformation that would make such innovation programs most effective. Innovation thrives in environments with high human capital, strong infrastructure, and accessible capital markets—areas where APNU’s comprehensive reform agenda offers superior foundations. APNU’s aggressive corporate tax reduction strategy could position Guyana as the Caribbean’s premier business destination, potentially attracting multinational corporations and creating a hub effect for regional investment. The Coalition’s comprehensive approach to economic transformation could make Guyana a model for other resource-rich developing countries seeking to translate natural wealth into inclusive development.

The emphasis on transparency in oil sector management, combined with ambitious social spending, would demonstrate that resource wealth can be managed for the broad-based benefit of society rather than elite capture. This approach could enhance Guyana’s international reputation and access to development financing and technical assistance. The integrated analysis reveals that APNU’s manifesto offers superior potential across multiple dimensions of development. While the PPP’s approach may appear more conventional and therefore “safer,” it fails to match the scale of intervention with the magnitude of opportunity that oil wealth represents. The Coalition’s comprehensive approach—combining aggressive poverty elimination, business climate transformation, infrastructure modernization, and energy sector leadership—could achieve in five years what conventional approaches might take decades to accomplish.

The choice facing Guyanese voters is ultimately between maintaining steady progress under familiar leadership or embracing transformative change that could position Guyana as a global development success story. APNU’s willingness to think boldly about what oil wealth can achieve, combined with their comprehensive approach to economic and social transformation, offers the superior pathway for maximizing Guyana’s development potential. Guyana stands at a unique historical moment where extraordinary resource wealth creates possibilities for development breakthroughs that may not recur. APNU’s manifesto recognizes this moment and proposes interventions commensurate with the opportunity. While implementation challenges exist, the potential rewards of successful execution far outweigh the risks of cautious incrementalism.

The Coalition’s vision of eliminating poverty while transforming the business climate and positioning Guyana for long-term competitiveness represents the kind of ambitious leadership that transformative moments require. For voters seeking fundamental change rather than incremental progress, APNU’s comprehensive development strategy offers the most straightforward path to realizing Guyana’s full potential as a prosperous, inclusive, and regionally competitive economy. The question is not whether APNU’s approach involves risks—all ambitious undertakings do—but whether these risks are justified by the transformative potential of the initiative. The evidence suggests they are, making APNU’s manifesto the superior choice for Guyana’s development future.

Guyana Business Journal
Aug 18, 2025

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board welcomes reflections and submissions at terrence.blackman@guyanabusinessjournal.com.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

Thank you for standing with us.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman

Guyana Business Journal

August 19, 2025 0 comments

The APNU Economic Vision: Promise and Pragmatism in Guyana’s Political Landscape

by guyanabusinessjournal August 15, 2025

written by guyanabusinessjournal

A comprehensive examination of the APNU Coalition’s economic policies and their implications for business development, investment climate, and long-term prosperity

The APNU Coalition’s 2025 manifesto arrives at a critical juncture in Guyana’s economic evolution, presenting what may be the most comprehensive economic transformation agenda in the country’s recent political history. As Guyana navigates the complexities of oil wealth management while building a sustainable non-oil economy, the Coalition’s “People-Centred Development Strategy” offers both an ambitious vision and sobering challenges that demand careful analysis from the business community and potential investors.

At its core, the manifesto represents a fundamental reimagining of the relationship between state resources and citizen welfare, proposing to leverage oil revenues for massive social spending while simultaneously creating conditions for private sector growth. This dual approach reflects an understanding that sustainable development requires both immediate poverty alleviation and long-term economic diversification, yet the execution of such an ambitious agenda raises important questions about fiscal sustainability and implementation capacity.

The Coalition’s approach to private sector development demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the structural barriers that have historically constrained business growth in Guyana. The commitment to progressive corporate tax reduction from the current 40% to an eventual 20-30% represents a significant shift toward regional competitiveness, particularly when considered alongside similar reforms in Caribbean jurisdictions seeking to attract foreign direct investment. This tax policy, combined with the gradual elimination of personal income tax for the self-employed starting with a $400,000 monthly threshold, signals a clear intention to create a more favorable environment for entrepreneurship and business expansion.

Perhaps most significantly for the business community, the manifesto’s proposal to establish a Development and Investment Bank addresses one of the most persistent challenges facing Guyanese enterprises: access to affordable credit. The current financial sector’s high interest rate spreads and limited lending capacity have long constrained business growth, particularly for small and medium enterprises seeking to scale operations or invest in new technologies. The proposed bank, coupled with plans to modernize the financial sector through expanded stock market operations and the introduction of a junior market for SME financing, could fundamentally transform the capital allocation landscape in Guyana.

The infrastructure development agenda outlined in the manifesto represents perhaps the most tangible opportunity for immediate business impact. The commitment to coast-to-hinterland highways, inter-regional road networks, and comprehensive telecommunications infrastructure addresses critical connectivity gaps that have limited market access and increased operational costs for businesses across sectors. These investments, if properly executed, could unlock significant economic opportunities in agriculture, mining, and tourism while reducing the geographic constraints that have historically concentrated economic activity along the coastal belt.

In the energy sector, the Coalition’s vision for a smart grid system with real-time monitoring capabilities and massive investment in renewable energy sources aligns with global trends toward energy security and climate resilience. The commitment to achieving net-zero emissions within 10-15 years, while ambitious, positions Guyana to capitalize on emerging carbon markets and green financing opportunities. For businesses, this energy transformation could translate into a more reliable power supply and potentially lower electricity costs, addressing one of the most significant operational challenges facing the private sector.

The manifesto’s treatment of oil sector governance reflects lessons learned from the current administration’s approach while proposing specific reforms that could enhance transparency and maximize benefits for the Guyanese people. The establishment of an autonomous Petroleum Commission staffed with experienced professionals represents a move toward technocratic governance that could improve sector oversight and policy coordination. The commitment to engage Stabroek Block partners for contract renegotiation, while maintaining fair profit sharing, suggests a pragmatic approach that balances nationalist aspirations with commercial realities.

However, the most striking aspect of the manifesto may be its ambitious social spending commitments, which include annual cash transfers of $100,000 or more to each adult, monthly stipends of $50,000 for post-secondary students, and childcare allowances of $120,000 per child attending school. While these programs could significantly boost consumer spending and reduce poverty, they also raise important questions about fiscal sustainability and potential inflationary pressures. The scale of these commitments suggests government expenditure increases that could strain public finances even with higher oil revenues, particularly if global oil prices decline or production targets are not met.

The funding mechanisms outlined in the manifesto rely heavily on optimistic assumptions about oil revenue growth, efficiency gains in government spending, and increased tax compliance. While the Coalition projects extracting “up to 30% more on every dollar” through reduced corruption and waste, such efficiency gains, while desirable, may prove difficult to achieve within the proposed timeline. The reliance on higher oil production from three approved FPSOs and successful contract renegotiation with ExxonMobil introduces additional uncertainty into revenue projections.

From a business perspective, the massive injection of cash into the economy through direct transfers could create significant opportunities in retail, services, and consumer goods sectors. However, it could also drive inflation that erodes the competitiveness of Guyanese businesses and makes the country a more expensive destination for foreign investment. The proposed minimum wage increase to $200,000 for public servants, while beneficial for workers, could create pressure for similar increases in the private sector that may not be sustainable for all businesses.

The manifesto’s approach to micro and small business development demonstrates recognition of this sector’s potential for job creation and economic dynamism. The commitment to increase Small Business Bureau funding by several billion dollars annually, combined with debt restructuring facilities and simplified registration processes, could unleash entrepreneurial energy that has been constrained by limited access to capital and bureaucratic obstacles. The provision for foreign currency access through the Small Business Bureau addresses a particular challenge facing businesses seeking to import equipment or raw materials.

In the agricultural sector, the Coalition’s comprehensive approach to drainage and irrigation infrastructure, land tenure modernization, and transportation improvements could transform productivity and market access for farmers. The commitment to making farming “a lucrative business at all scales and in all regions” reflects an understanding that agricultural development requires coordinated investment in infrastructure, technology, and market systems rather than piecemeal interventions.

The governance and transparency commitments outlined in the manifesto align with international best practices and business community expectations for institutional strengthening. The promise to fully implement constitutional reforms, enhance the Access to Information Act, and establish professional oversight bodies could create a more predictable and accountable policy environment. However, the effectiveness of these reforms will depend on political will and institutional capacity that may take time to develop.

For the business community, the manifesto presents both significant opportunities and important risks that require careful consideration. The pro-business orientation, infrastructure investments, and financial sector modernization could create conditions for sustained economic growth and diversification. However, the ambitious social spending agenda and compressed implementation timeline raise questions about fiscal sustainability and execution capacity that could affect long-term economic stability.

The success of the APNU economic vision will ultimately depend on the Coalition’s ability to balance competing priorities while maintaining fiscal discipline and institutional capacity. The business community should engage constructively with policy development processes while advocating for realistic implementation timelines and sustainable fiscal frameworks. The manifesto’s emphasis on regular private sector consultation provides opportunities for ongoing dialogue that could help refine policies and ensure they achieve intended outcomes.

As Guyana approaches this critical election, the business community faces a choice between different visions for economic development and resource allocation. The APNU manifesto offers a comprehensive alternative to current policies that could significantly reshape the investment climate and business environment. However, the ultimate test will be whether these ambitious commitments can be translated into effective policies that deliver sustainable prosperity for both citizens and businesses in the years ahead.

Editorial Assessment: Policy Specificity and Implementation Realism

The Guyana Business Journal’s analysis of political manifestos focuses on policy specificity, implementation feasibility, and long-term sustainability rather than campaign rhetoric or partisan positioning. In this context, the APNU manifesto demonstrates both strengths and weaknesses that merit careful consideration by voters and stakeholders.

The manifesto’s strength lies in its comprehensive approach to economic development that recognizes the interconnected nature of infrastructure, human capital, and institutional capacity. The specific commitments to corporate tax reduction, financial sector modernization, and infrastructure development provide concrete policy directions that businesses can evaluate and plan around. The recognition that oil wealth must be leveraged to build productive capacity rather than simply distributed as consumption represents sophisticated economic thinking. However, the manifesto’s weakness lies in the gap between ambitious commitments and realistic implementation timelines. The promise to transform lives and livelihoods within the first year while simultaneously implementing complex institutional reforms and massive infrastructure projects may exceed the capacity of any government, regardless of political affiliation. The compressed timeline for achieving such extensive changes raises questions about whether the Coalition has adequately considered the administrative and logistical challenges involved.

The fiscal arithmetic underlying the social spending commitments also requires greater transparency and specificity. While the manifesto identifies potential funding sources, the scale of proposed expenditures suggests government spending increases that could fundamentally alter Guyana’s fiscal profile. The business community and voters deserve more detailed projections of revenue requirements, implementation costs, and contingency planning for scenarios where oil revenues fall short of expectations. From an institutional perspective, the manifesto’s governance reforms represent significant steps toward greater transparency and accountability, which could enhance Guyana’s investment climate and democratic institutions. However, the effectiveness of these reforms will depend on sustained political commitment and institutional capacity building that extends beyond electoral cycles. The business community should advocate for governance improvements that transcend partisan politics and create lasting institutional strength.

The manifesto’s treatment of regional and international economic integration remains underdeveloped, particularly given Guyana’s growing importance in Caribbean and South American economic networks. As oil wealth transforms Guyana’s economic profile, the country’s approach to trade policy, regional cooperation, and international investment agreements will significantly impact business opportunities and prospects for economic diversification.

Recommendations for Stakeholder Engagement

For the business community, the APNU manifesto presents opportunities for constructive engagement that could help refine policies and ensure they achieve intended outcomes. The Coalition’s commitment to regular private sector consultation provides a framework for ongoing dialogue that should be leveraged to address implementation challenges and unintended consequences. Businesses should particularly focus on engaging with policy development around the proposed Development and Investment Bank, Special Economic Zones, and local content requirements in the oil sector. These initiatives could significantly impact business operations and investment decisions, making early engagement essential for ensuring that policies support, rather than constrain, private sector growth. The manifesto’s emphasis on skills development and workforce training also presents opportunities for public-private partnerships that could address labor market mismatches while supporting business expansion. Companies should consider how they can contribute to and benefit from enhanced technical and vocational training programs that align with industry needs.

For investors, both domestic and foreign, the manifesto signals potential improvements in the business environment that could enhance returns and reduce operational risks. However, investors should carefully monitor implementation progress and fiscal sustainability indicators to assess whether policy commitments translate into lasting improvements in the investment climate.

The international development community should engage with the Coalition’s development agenda to ensure alignment with global best practices and the Sustainable Development Goals. The manifesto’s ambitious social protection and poverty reduction commitments align with international development priorities; however, implementation will require technical assistance and capacity building that international partners can provide.

Vision, Execution, and Democratic Choice

The APNU Coalition’s 2025 manifesto represents a comprehensive vision for economic transformation that addresses many of the structural challenges constraining Guyana’s development. The commitment to private sector development, infrastructure investment, and governance improvements could significantly enhance the country’s economic prospects and quality of life for citizens. However, the ultimate test of any manifesto lies not in its aspirations but in its execution. The ambitious scope and compressed timeline of the Coalition’s commitments raise important questions about implementation capacity and fiscal sustainability that will require careful monitoring and adaptive management if the Coalition assumes office. For Guyana’s democracy, the manifesto contributes to a policy debate that focuses on substantive issues rather than personality-driven politics. Regardless of electoral outcomes, the detailed policy proposals outlined in the manifesto should inform ongoing discussions about economic development, resource allocation, and institutional strengthening that transcend partisan divisions.

The business community and civil society have important roles to play in holding political leaders accountable for manifesto commitments while supporting effective policy implementation that serves the national interest. The quality of Guyana’s democratic discourse and policy outcomes will depend on sustained engagement from stakeholders who prioritize evidence-based analysis over partisan positioning. As Guyana navigates this critical period in its development, the choice between different economic visions will shape the country’s trajectory for decades to come. The APNU manifesto offers one path forward that merits serious consideration alongside alternative approaches proposed by other political parties. The ultimate judgment belongs to Guyanese voters, who must weigh competing visions against their own priorities and assessments of implementation feasibility.

Guyana Business Journal
Aug 15, 2025

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board welcomes reflections and submissions at terrence.blackman@guyanabusinessjournal.com.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

Thank you for standing with us.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman

Guyana Business Journal

August 15, 2025 0 comments

Amanza Walton-Desir & The Forward Guyana Movement-Breaking the Cycle: A Vision for Guyana’s Political Future

by guyanabusinessjournal August 13, 2025

written by guyanabusinessjournal

In the gleaming conference rooms where Guyana’s economic statistics are celebrated, the numbers tell a remarkable story. For five consecutive years, this South American nation has boasted the world’s fastest-growing economy, fueled by unprecedented oil discoveries that have transformed it into a global energy player. Yet beyond the polished presentations and compelling charts lies a troubling reality that Amanza Walton-Desir, leader of the Forward Guyana movement, refuses to ignore.

“It’s growth without inclusion,” she states with the directness that has become her political trademark. “While we look very good on paper, that reality is not getting down to the ordinary Guyanese man or woman.”

The paradox is stark and undeniable: in a nation where someone can secure a $400 million loan, 48% of the population still lives on just $5 a day. This isn’t merely an economic disparity—it’s the symptom of what Walton-Desir calls “a broken system” that has trapped Guyana in a cycle of exclusion for six decades.

For most Guyanese, political engagement has meant choosing a side in an ethnic chess game where victory for one community inevitably means defeat for another. The APNU coalition draws predominantly from Afro-Guyanese voters, while the PPP’s base is largely Indo-Guyanese. This division, Walton-Desir argues, isn’t accidental—it’s structural.

“The two-party system literally is designed to continue to pit us against each other,” she explains, drawing from her own experience of stepping away from established opposition politics. “You pick a camp and you be quiet. When an Afro-Guyanese crosses over, they’re called a ‘soup drinker’ or ‘slave.’ When an Indo-Guyanese is seen supporting the APNU, the cultural pressures they face are real.”

After years of delivering what she describes as “compelling presentations, thorough and factual analysis, making compelling cases,” Walton-Desir reached a painful conclusion: “Nothing changed. The mindset of government and governance in this country is that you will have your say, but we will have our way.”

This realization forced a deeper reckoning. In a country facing an “existential threat” from Venezuela while managing unprecedented oil wealth, the traditional political framework seemed not just inadequate but dangerous. “When one party is in office, half of the country feels locked out. When another party is in office, the other half feels locked out.”

Perhaps nowhere is the failure of current governance more evident than in Guyana’s handling of Venezuelan migration. By the foreign secretary’s own admission, over 100,000 Venezuelans now live in Guyana—a number that represents 10% of the country’s population. Walton-Desir’s analysis is both precise and alarming: “You have 100,000 people who are unregistered, unregulated, with a belief that Essequibo belongs to them.” This isn’t ordinary migration, she insists. “The deliberate injection of population into a country is a tool of hybrid warfare.”

The mathematics are sobering. With approximately 7,000 votes determining a parliamentary seat, the political implications of unchecked migration become clear. “Do you understand how the balance of power could be completely removed from the hands of Guyanese?” she asks.

Even more concerning is how this situation developed. Walton-Desir alleges that the PPP administration deliberately facilitated this migration by gutting registration requirements. Where previously, late birth registrations required multiple forms of evidence, the law was changed to allow a single affidavit from a “person of high standing” to suffice.

“People who can’t read or speak a lick of English have names like Terrence Blackman and have entered our electoral roll,” she claims, suggesting systematic manipulation of the voter base for political advantage.

At the heart of Guyana’s dysfunction lies a constitution that concentrates too much power in the executive while providing no meaningful enforcement mechanisms for democratic principles. Article 13 speaks of “inclusive democracy,” but as Walton-Desir notes, “it is just flowery language, and there’s nothing underpinning the enforcement of that paradigm.”

The result is a system where 51% of the vote grants 100% of the power, creating what she calls “winner-takes-all politics.” Constitutional reform has been promised for decades, yet it never materializes. “People promise reform, and then when they get the sweet seat, suddenly it’s kicked down the road.”

The PPP’s handling of constitutional reform after the 2020 electoral crisis exemplifies this pattern. Despite nearly a billion dollars allocated to the process, “the constitutional reform committee has not met on a single substantive issue.”

Forward Guyana represents something different—not just another political party, but a deliberate attempt to break the cycle. The movement emerged organically from three newer political organizations that discovered their agreements outweighed their differences on core issues: ending corruption, dismantling winner-takes-all politics, and properly managing the nation’s oil wealth.

“We didn’t unite for convenience,” Walton-Desir emphasizes. “We realized that what we agreed upon was more than what we disagreed upon.”

The movement’s approach to oil negotiations illustrates their pragmatic philosophy. While acknowledging that “sanctity of contract is a thing that has to be honored,” they argue that renegotiation is normal business practice. The key difference is capacity: “The entire sector is run by Barry Jagdeo and two other people. We do not have the institutional capacity to approach negotiating in any way, shape or form.”

Their solution involves building proper institutions, engaging international expertise, and learning from countries like Norway that have successfully managed oil wealth. “We are already receiving revenue that we can’t manage, not because we don’t have Guyanese with the expertise, but because we are at the mercy of a cabal that insists on doing the wrong thing.”

Perhaps nothing captures Guyana’s dysfunction better than the collapse of meritocracy. Walton-Desir paints a devastating picture: a university graduate with excellent grades watching someone with five CXC subjects get a position because of connections. “The demoralizing effect of that is something we cannot begin to comprehend.”

This extends beyond individual frustration to national crisis. The nurse-to-patient ratio at Georgetown Hospital is 30:1, compared to the international standard of 6:1. Skilled professionals are leaving the country in droves, not just for better pay but because they can’t see a future built on merit rather than connections.

“We have to restore meritocracy,” she argues. “Once that mindset is restored, we will incentivize our best and brightest to stay here.”

The Venezuela situation represents more than just migration policy—it’s a test of Guyana’s ability to protect its sovereignty while managing complex geopolitical pressures. Walton-Desir advocates for absolute unity across party lines on territorial integrity: “There ought to be no daylight between us when it comes to our territorial integrity and our sovereignty.”

Yet she places responsibility for the current crisis squarely on the PPP administration’s shoulders. The unchecked migration, the compromised registration system, and the failure to address warnings dating back to 2021 have created what she terms “a soft invasion.”

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Venezuela, with over 20 million people, could easily overwhelm Guyana’s 800,000 population through demographic engineering. “Maduro is playing a game. He will continue to encourage Venezuelans to come here and undermine us from within.”

While oil revenues dominate headlines, Walton-Desir warns against the “supremely dangerous” reliance on a single commodity. Drawing lessons from Venezuela’s economic collapse, she advocates for aggressive diversification into agriculture, agro-processing, and light manufacturing.

“We can eat everything today and have our children starve tomorrow,” she warns. “Venezuela is a cautionary tale about how when oil wealth is mismanaged, a nation and people suffer.”

The irony is painful: as Venezuelans flee economic hardship to take menial jobs in Guyana, the lesson should be clear. Proper management requires building institutions, closing the 41% efficiency gap caused by corruption, and thinking beyond the current political cycle.

The Forward Guyana movement’s message transcends traditional political appeals. This is about more than winning elections—it’s about breaking a sixty-year cycle of dysfunction that has trapped the nation in ethnic division and institutional weakness.

“These elections coming here are not about left or right,” Walton-Desir declares. “They’re about forward or backward.”

The movement’s strength lies in its clarity about the challenges ahead. They acknowledge that constitutional reform might be “politically naive” in the short term but argue it’s essential for long-term survival. They understand that Guyanese need to see unity in action, not just rhetoric about it.

“We are a credible alternative to the status quo,” she asserts. “We have not been compromised by bribes and corruption and graft. We can stand and hold everybody accountable without fear or favor.”

As Guyana approaches another electoral moment, the choice has rarely been clearer or more consequential. The traditional two-party system offers more of the same: ethnic division, institutional weakness, and the gradual erosion of sovereignty through demographic manipulation and poor governance.

Forward Guyana offers something different: the possibility that Guyanese can move beyond the false choice between two forms of exclusion toward genuine power-sharing and institutional strength.

“We cannot do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result,” Walton-Desir concludes. “You have before you a team of credible people who are willing to work, willing to reach across the aisle. No one political party in Guyana has all the answers.”

The task ahead requires not just political change but a fundamental shift in how Guyanese see themselves and their country. It means moving from a culture of patronage to one of merit, from ethnic loyalty to national unity, from short-term political gain to long-term institutional building.

The oil wealth provides an unprecedented opportunity, but as Venezuela’s example shows, natural resources alone cannot guarantee prosperity. What matters is the quality of institutions, the strength of democratic governance, and the ability of leaders to put national interest above partisan advantage.

Guyana stands at a crossroads. The path forward requires courage from both leaders and citizens—the courage to break old patterns, to trust new approaches, and to believe that a different future is possible. The alternative is to remain trapped in cycles that have impoverished the nation’s potential for six decades.

The choice, as Walton-Desir reminds us, belongs to the people. “To the degree that you vote in accordance with your conscience, it could never be a wasted vote, because that is the essence of democracy.”

The question now is whether Guyanese will choose the difficult path of transformation or the familiar comfort of division. The nation’s future—and perhaps its very sovereignty—hangs in the balance.

Please view the whole conversation here:

Guyana Business Journal
Aug 12, 2025

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board welcomes reflections and submissions at terrence.blackman@guyanabusinessjournal.com.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

Thank you for standing with us.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman

Guyana Business Journal

August 13, 2025 0 comments

Yellowtail’s Launch Reshapes Guyana’s Electoral Landscape: What Voters Need to Know Before September 1st

by guyanabusinessjournal August 9, 2025

written by guyanabusinessjournal

🗳️ Interactive Voter Guide

Yellowtail’s Electoral Impact – September 1st Election

Your browser does not support iframes. <a href="https://lejpbjhp.manus.space" target="_blank">View the interactive guide here</a>.

🔗 Open in New Window

|
GBJ Analysis

Just weeks before Guyanese voters head to the polls on September 1st, 2025, ExxonMobil has delivered what may prove to be the most consequential pre-election development in the nation’s history. The launch of the Yellowtail oil project on August 8th, 2025, represents far more than another industrial milestone—it fundamentally alters the stakes of the upcoming general election and the questions voters must ask of their candidates.

With Yellowtail’s 250,000 barrels per day now flowing into global markets, Guyana’s total oil production capacity has reached 900,000 barrels per day, positioning this South American nation as a major petroleum producer just as its democratic institutions face their most critical test. The timing is no coincidence; it’s a convergence that will define not only who governs Guyana for the next five years, but how the nation’s unprecedented oil wealth will be managed, distributed, and leveraged for the benefit of all Guyanese.

President Irfaan Ali’s People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government, seeking a second term, now campaigns with the wind of oil revenues at their backs. Yet this same windfall has intensified scrutiny over environmental governance, transparency in resource management, and the equitable distribution of petroleum proceeds across Guyana’s diverse regions and communities. The opposition, led by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and bolstered by the Alliance for Change (AFC), frames the election as a referendum on whether the current administration can be trusted with the nation’s most valuable asset.

The electoral implications extend far beyond traditional campaign promises. Yellowtail’s launch crystallizes fundamental questions about democratic governance in a petro-state: How should oil revenues be managed through the Natural Resource Fund? What environmental safeguards are non-negotiable? How can petroleum wealth address historical inequities between regions and ethnic communities? And perhaps most critically, what institutional reforms are necessary to ensure that oil becomes a blessing rather than a curse for Guyana’s democratic future?

The launch of Yellowtail arrives at a moment of extraordinary political significance, creating what political analysts might call a “perfect storm” of economic opportunity and democratic accountability. With just 24 days separating this significant oil milestone from election day, the project’s debut serves as both a campaign asset for the incumbent PPP/C and a focal point for opposition criticism about governance and transparency. ExxonMobil’s achievement in bringing Yellowtail online four months ahead of schedule represents the kind of operational success that incumbent governments strive to showcase during election season [1]. The project, featuring the company’s largest Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel, demonstrates the continued confidence of international oil majors in Guyana’s oil and gas sector. For President Ali, this timing provides tangible evidence of his administration’s ability to attract and manage significant international investments while delivering on promises of economic transformation.

Yet the opposition views this exact timing through a completely different lens. The APNU, which launched its 2025 campaign in July, has positioned Yellowtail’s launch as emblematic of the PPP/C’s failure to ensure adequate environmental oversight and equitable distribution of benefits [2]. The Alliance for Change, perhaps implicitly acknowledging that the PPP/C is likely to win the election, has focused its strategy on building coalitions with other parties to potentially force the governing party into a minority government situation—a scenario that would fundamentally alter how oil revenues are managed and distributed [3].

The electoral mathematics are particularly compelling when viewed through the lens of Guyana’s ethnic voting patterns. The PPP/C has historically drawn its support primarily from the Indo-Guyanese population, while APNU represents predominantly Afro-Guyanese communities [4]. Yellowtail’s launch, occurring in offshore waters that belong to all Guyanese regardless of ethnicity or region, creates an opportunity for candidates to transcend traditional ethnic appeals and speak to shared national interests in petroleum governance. This convergence of oil wealth and electoral politics also highlights Guyana’s unique position among the world’s emerging oil producers. Unlike many petro-states, where democratic institutions were already weakened before oil discovery, Guyana’s petroleum boom is occurring within the context of competitive elections and an active civil society. The September 1st election will therefore serve as a crucial test of whether democratic governance can be strengthened rather than undermined by sudden wealth from resources.

The stakes extend beyond Guyana’s borders as well. International observers, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, are closely monitoring the unfolding of this election, recognizing that Guyana’s experience could serve as either a positive or cautionary example for other emerging oil producers in the Caribbean and Latin America. The successful integration of petroleum wealth with democratic governance would represent a significant achievement for the region. At the same time, failure could contribute to broader concerns about the “resource curse” in developing democracies.

Against this backdrop, the 2025 election campaign has crystallized around several key issues that directly intersect with Guyana’s oil boom, transforming traditional political debates into high-stakes discussions about resource governance and national development strategy. These campaign battlegrounds reveal fundamental philosophical differences between the parties about how petroleum wealth should be managed, regulated, and distributed. The Natural Resource Fund has emerged as one of the most contentious campaign issues, with parties offering dramatically different visions for how oil revenues should be managed and deployed. The PPP/C government redesigned the NRF, i.e., Guyana’s sovereign wealth fund, to ensure the Ministry of Finance maintains overall responsibility for the fund’s operations [5]. However, opposition parties have continuously raised serious questions about transparency, governance structures, and the criteria used for fund withdrawals and investments.

President Ali’s campaign messaging emphasizes “unmatched progress,” arguing that his administration has delivered more development in one term than any previous government in Guyana’s history [6]. This narrative is supported by visible infrastructure improvements, expanded social programs, and continued foreign investment in the petroleum sector. The PPP/C points to Yellowtail’s ahead-of-schedule launch as evidence of their effective management of international partnerships and their ability to create conditions for continued sectoral growth. However, environmental governance has become another major campaign flashpoint, with opposition parties highlighting a series of violations and regulatory failures that have occurred under the current administration’s watch. ExxonMobil’s unauthorized gas flaring, despite environmental licenses that prohibited such activities except for maintenance or safety purposes, has become a symbol of what critics describe as inadequate regulatory oversight [7]. The company’s operation without proper insurance coverage, in apparent violation of permit requirements, has further fueled opposition arguments about the need for more vigorous environmental enforcement [8].

These environmental concerns extend beyond regulatory compliance to broader questions about Guyana’s environmental future and its international commitments. The unauthorized flaring has resulted in significant carbon dioxide emissions that could threaten nearby coral reefs and raise questions about Guyana’s status as a net carbon sink [9]. For voters concerned about climate change and environmental protection, these issues raise fundamental questions about whether the current government can strike a balance between economic development and environmental stewardship.

Perhaps the most innovative and controversial proposal to emerge from the campaign season is the Working People’s Alliance’s call for Universal Basic Income. The party has advocated for a $1 million UBI per household annually, arguing that oil wealth should be used to “lift every Guyanese out of poverty” [10]. This proposal represents a radical departure from traditional social policy approaches. It reflects growing international interest in UBI as a mechanism for ensuring that resource wealth benefits entire populations rather than just political and economic elites. The UBI debate has forced all parties to articulate their visions for how oil revenues should directly benefit ordinary Guyanese. The PPP/C government’s provision of a $200,000 one-off cash grant in 2024 can be seen as a modest step in this direction, but it falls far short of the systematic approach advocated by UBI proponents [11]. The proposal has particular resonance in a country where historical inequities between regions and ethnic communities have created persistent development gaps that traditional government programs have struggled to address.

Regional equity has become another critical campaign issue, with parties forced to address how petroleum wealth will be distributed across Guyana’s diverse geographic and demographic landscape. The concentration of oil operations offshore, while avoiding some of the direct environmental and social impacts associated with onshore extraction, has created questions about how benefits will reach interior regions and indigenous communities that have historically been marginalized in national development planning. The campaign has also highlighted fundamental questions about democratic institutions and governance structures in a rapidly changing economic environment. Opposition parties argue that the concentration of oil revenue management within the Ministry of Finance creates insufficient checks and balances. At the same time, the PPP/C maintains that centralized management is necessary for effective coordination and strategic planning. These institutional debates reflect broader concerns about whether Guyana’s democratic structures are adequately equipped to handle the complexities of petroleum wealth management.

As Guyanese voters prepare to cast their ballots on September 1st, the launch of Yellowtail creates both opportunities and obligations for informed democratic participation. The unprecedented scale of petroleum revenues flowing into national coffers means that electoral choices will have consequences that extend far beyond traditional policy preferences, potentially shaping the country’s development trajectory for generations to come. Voters evaluating candidates and parties should demand clear, specific answers to fundamental questions about oil revenue management and governance. How will each party ensure transparency in Natural Resource Fund operations, and what mechanisms will they establish for public oversight of fund investments and withdrawals? The current system, although meeting basic international standards, may require significant strengthening to handle the scale of revenues that Yellowtail and future projects are expected to generate. Candidates should be pressed to explain not just their general commitment to transparency, but their specific proposals for institutional reforms that would enhance public accountability.

Environmental governance represents another area where voters deserve detailed policy commitments rather than general assurances. Given ExxonMobil’s documented violations of environmental permits and the apparent failure of current regulatory mechanisms to prevent unauthorized activities, how will each party strengthen environmental oversight and enforcement to prevent such breaches in the future? What specific penalties will be imposed for permit violations, and how will regulatory agencies be empowered to ensure compliance with environmental standards? These questions are particularly urgent given the long-term nature of oil extraction operations and the irreversible nature of many environmental impacts.

The distribution of petroleum benefits across Guyana’s diverse regions and communities requires equally specific policy commitments from candidates. How will each party ensure that oil revenues contribute to reducing rather than exacerbating existing inequalities between coastal and interior regions, between urban and rural communities, and between different ethnic groups? The Universal Basic Income proposals advanced by some parties represent one approach to this challenge. Still, voters should demand detailed explanations of how such programs would be funded, implemented, and sustained over time.

Institutional capacity represents perhaps the most complex but crucial area for voter evaluation. Guyana’s rapid transformation from one of South America’s poorest countries to a significant oil producer has created enormous strains on government institutions that were designed for a much smaller, less complex economy. How will each party strengthen the capacity of regulatory agencies, financial management institutions, and oversight bodies to handle the complexities of petroleum wealth management? What specific investments in human resources, technology, and institutional systems will be made to ensure effective governance?

The international dimensions of oil governance also require voter attention and candidate specificity. How will each party manage relationships with international oil companies to ensure that Guyana receives fair value for its petroleum resources while maintaining attractive conditions for continued investment? What role will international financial institutions, development partners, and regional organizations play in supporting good governance and sustainable development? These relationships will be crucial for ensuring that Guyana’s oil wealth contributes to long-term prosperity rather than short-term political gain.

Democratic accountability mechanisms deserve particular scrutiny in the context of petroleum wealth management. How will each party ensure that oil revenues enhance rather than undermine democratic governance? What safeguards will be established to prevent the concentration of power that has characterized many petro-states? How will civil society organizations, media, and opposition parties be empowered to provide effective oversight of government performance? These questions are essential for ensuring that oil wealth strengthens rather than weakens Guyana’s democratic institutions.

The electoral stakes extend beyond immediate policy choices to fundamental questions about national identity and development strategy. Will Guyana utilize its petroleum wealth to diversify its economy and establish sustainable foundations for long-term prosperity, or will it become overly dependent on oil revenues, thereby creating vulnerability to price volatility and resource depletion? How will the country balance the immediate benefits of petroleum extraction with long-term environmental and social sustainability? These strategic questions require leadership with both vision and practical experience in managing complex development challenges.

Voters must also consider the regional and international implications of their electoral choices. Guyana’s experience with petroleum wealth management will be closely watched by other emerging oil producers in the Caribbean and Latin America. Success in combining resource wealth with democratic governance could position Guyana as a regional leader and model for sustainable development. Failure, conversely, could contribute to broader regional challenges and limit Guyana’s influence in international forums. The September 1st election, therefore, carries responsibilities that extend beyond national borders to regional and global communities interested in demonstrating that resource wealth and democratic governance can be successfully combined.

The launch of Yellowtail on August 8th, 2025, marks not just an industrial achievement but a democratic inflection point for Guyana. As voters prepare to make their choices on September 1st, they face decisions that will determine whether their country joins the ranks of successful petro-states that have used resource wealth to build stronger, more prosperous societies or whether it follows the more common path toward the institutional weakening and social division that characterizes the “resource curse.” The evidence from Guyana’s first five years as an oil producer presents both reasons for optimism and concerns. The successful attraction of continued international investment, the establishment of basic institutional frameworks for revenue management, and the maintenance of competitive electoral processes all suggest that democratic governance can coexist with petroleum wealth. However, the documented environmental violations, questions about transparency in fund management, and persistent inequalities in benefit distribution indicate that significant challenges remain unresolved.

The international community’s attention to Guyana’s electoral process reflects broader recognition that this small South American nation’s experience could have implications far beyond its borders. Success in combining petroleum wealth with democratic governance would provide a valuable model for other emerging oil producers. At the same time, failure could reinforce pessimistic assumptions about the inevitability of the resource curse in developing democracies. The choice facing Guyanese voters on September 1st is therefore both deeply personal and profoundly historical. Personal, because the decisions made about oil revenue management will directly affect the economic opportunities, environmental conditions, and social services available to every Guyanese family. Historical, because these choices will determine whether Guyana’s oil boom becomes a foundation for sustainable prosperity or a source of division and institutional weakness.

The Yellowtail launch, occurring just weeks before the election, serves as a powerful reminder of both the opportunities and responsibilities that come with petroleum wealth. The 250,000 barrels per day now flowing from this project represent resources that could fund transformative investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social programs. They could also, if mismanaged, become sources of corruption, environmental degradation, and social conflict. As this election series continues, we will examine in greater detail the specific policy proposals advanced by different parties, the institutional reforms necessary for effective petroleum governance, and the international experiences that offer lessons for Guyana’s development path. The Natural Resource Fund’s governance structures, the environmental regulatory framework, and the mechanisms for ensuring equitable benefit distribution all deserve careful analysis as voters prepare to make informed choices.

The September 1st election will not resolve all questions about Guyana’s petroleum future, but it will establish the framework within which those questions will be addressed over the next five years. The choices made by voters will determine not only who governs, but also how governance itself evolves in response to the challenges and opportunities presented by petroleum wealth. In this sense, the election represents both an end and a beginning—the conclusion of Guyana’s first chapter as an oil producer and the opening of a new phase in its democratic development.

This is the first article in our 2025 Elections Series, examining how Guyana’s oil boom intersects with democratic governance. Coming next: “The Natural Resource Fund Debate: Transparency, Governance, and Public Accountability” – an in-depth analysis of how different parties propose to manage petroleum revenues and what international best practices suggest about effective sovereign wealth fund governance.

Other upcoming articles in this series will examine indigenous rights and environmental justice, economic diversification strategies beyond oil, and regional equity in petroleum benefit distribution. Follow our coverage as Guyana approaches this critical electoral moment.

References

[1] ExxonMobil Corporate News. “ExxonMobil starts production at Yellowtail in Guyana.” August 8, 2025. https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/news-releases/2025/0808_exxonmobil-guyana-begins-production-at-fourth-offshore-guyana-project

[2] Guyana Times. “APNU launches 2025 elections campaign.” July 7, 2025. https://guyanatimesgy.com/apnu-launches-2025-elections-campaign/

[3] Action News Guyana. “AFC SAYS THEY KNOW PPP/C WILL WIN 2025 ELECTIONS BUT ALL THE OTHER PARTIES ARE WORKING ON A PLAN TO MAKE THEM A MINORITY GOVERNMENT.” July 27, 2025. https://www.facebook.com/actionnewsguyana/posts/afc-says-they-know-pppc-will-win-2025-elections-but-all-the-other-parties-are-wo/1163246105839368/

[4] Oxford Analytica. “Guyana election doubts spark international concern.” Emerald Expert Briefings, 2020. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/oxan-db251181/full/html

[5] Department of Public Information, Guyana. “Natural Resource Fund 101: What every Guyanese should know.” June 21, 2025. https://dpi.gov.gy/natural-resource-fund-101-what-every-guyanese-should-know/

[6] Facebook – Newsroom Guyana. “President Dr. Irfaan Ali, who is seeking a second term in office, addressed the masses.” August 3, 2025. https://www.facebook.com/newsroomgy/posts/president-dr-irfaan-ali-who-is-seeking-a-second-term-in-office-addressed-the-mas/1102284198710838/

[7] Dialogue Earth. “ExxonMobil builds ‘petro-state’ in Guyana, amid environmental concerns.” April 17, 2025. https://dialogue.earth/en/nature/exxonmobil-builds-petro-state-in-guyana-amid-environmental-concerns/

[8] Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “ExxonMobil loses key case in Guyana oil controversy over insurance.” May 22, 2023. https://ieefa.org/resources/exxonmobil-loses-key-case-guyana-oil-controversy-over-insurance

[9] Bynoe, P., Wood, S., & Simmons, D. “Greenhouse gas emissions from petroleum production in Guyana: An examination of the implications for the country’s net carbon sink status.” Science Progress, 2024. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00368504231218609

[10] Credible Sources 592. “$1 Million UBI for All Households The WPA reaffirms its call for a Universal Basic Income.” January 6, 2025. https://www.facebook.com/CredibleSources592/photos/1-million-ubi-for-all-households-the-wpa-reaffirms-its-call-for-a-universal-basi/1152455516269093/

[11] Guyana Business Journal. “Guyana’s $200000 One-Off Cash Grant: A Step Forward, but More is Needed.” October 11, 2024. https://guyanabusinessjournal.com/2024/10/guyanas-200000-one-off-cash-grant-a-step-forward-but-more-is-needed/

Guyana Business Journal
Aug 09, 2025

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board welcomes reflections and submissions at terrence.blackman@guyanabusinessjournal.com.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

Thank you for standing with us.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman

Guyana Business Journal

August 9, 2025 0 comments

The Mathematics of Democracy: What Happens When Nobody Wins?

by guyanabusinessjournal August 8, 2025

written by guyanabusinessjournal

Interactive Companion

Explore Guyana’s Electoral System

🔗 Open in New Window

As Guyanese voters prepare for the September 1st general election, the political landscape has shifted dramatically with the Alliance For Change’s decision to contest independently, ending coalition talks with A Partnership for National Unity after negotiations stalled over the selection of a presidential candidate. This fracturing of the opposition creates unprecedented electoral mathematics that could produce scenarios never before tested in Guyana’s democratic history. While President Irfaan Ali’s PPP/C seeks re-election amid the country’s oil-driven transformation, the split opposition raises a fundamental question that goes to the heart of democratic governance: What happens when no party achieves a clear mandate to govern?

The question becomes particularly acute when considering the theoretical but possible scenario in which two parties achieve the same number of seats in the National Assembly, both falling short of the 33-seat majority required for outright control. In an electoral system where every seat determines not just legislative power but executive authority through the presidency, such mathematical deadlocks would test the very foundations of Guyana’s constitutional framework. The answer, as extensive research into the country’s electoral laws and constitutional provisions reveals, is both more complex and more uncertain than most voters realize.

Understanding this scenario requires grasping the unique nature of Guyana’s electoral system. This sophisticated mathematical process combines proportional representation with geographic representation through a dual structure of national and regional seats. When voters cast their ballots on September 1st, they participate in a system that utilizes the Hare-Quota formula to distribute 65 parliamentary seats based on vote totals, with the presidential candidate of the winning party automatically assuming executive power. This system, designed to ensure fair representation while maintaining governmental stability, contains within it the seeds of potential constitutional uncertainty that could reshape the functioning of democracy in the oil-rich nation.

The mechanics of Guyana’s electoral system reveal both its sophistication and its potential vulnerabilities. The National Assembly’s 65 seats are divided between 40 national seats representing the entire country and 25 regional seats distributed across the ten administrative regions based on registered voter populations [1]. This dual structure means that when Guyanese vote, they simultaneously cast ballots for both their regional representative and the national list, though typically for the same party. The mathematical foundation underlying this process, the Hare-Quota system named after 19th-century English reformer Thomas Hare, divides the total valid votes by the number of seats to determine how many votes are needed to “purchase” one parliamentary seat.

The 2020 election provides a concrete example of how this system operates in practice. With 460,352 total valid votes cast across 65 seats, the Hare Quota stood at 7,082 votes per seat [2]. The People’s Progressive Party/Civic achieved 233,336 votes, translating to 32.94 quotas and initially securing 32 seats, with a remainder of 6,653 votes. The APNU+AFC coalition garnered 217,920 votes for 30.77 quotas and 30 initial seats, leaving 5,454 remainder votes. After distributing the three remaining seats to parties with the largest remainders, PPP/C secured 33 seats to APNU+AFC’s 31, with smaller parties claiming one seat. This mathematical precision typically produces clear winners, but the remainder allocation process that determined the final outcome demonstrates how narrow margins can decide governmental control.

The regional versus national seat dynamics add another layer of complexity that becomes crucial in close elections. In 2020, APNU+AFC won more regional seats than PPP/C, capturing 13 of the 25 regional seats compared to PPP/C’s 12 [3]. However, PPP/C’s stronger performance in the national vote earned them more “top-up” seats from the 40 national allocation, ultimately securing their parliamentary majority. This split between regional and national strength illustrates how the dual system can produce different types of legitimacy claims, with one party potentially asserting stronger geographic representation while another claims broader popular support.

The mathematical improbability of exact ties emerges from this complex allocation process, yet the theoretical possibility remains. For two parties to achieve identical seat counts, they would need not only similar vote totals but also remainder calculations that produce the same final allocation after the quota distribution is applied. The multiple variables involved in this process, including regional vote distributions and the interaction between national and regional seat allocations, make such outcomes statistically unlikely but not impossible, particularly in a fragmented political landscape where multiple parties compete for parliamentary representation.

The constitutional framework governing presidential selection in Guyana presents unique challenges for deadlock scenarios, distinguishing the country from other Westminster-style democracies in the Caribbean region. Unlike systems where separate presidential elections provide clear executive mandates, Guyana’s hybrid presidential-parliamentary system links executive power directly to legislative success. Each party designates a presidential candidate on their party list before the general election, and the candidate of whichever party wins the most seats in the National Assembly automatically becomes president [4]. This system creates an indissoluble connection between parliamentary representation and executive authority, making the composition of the National Assembly the sole determinant of both legislative control and presidential power.

The constitutional provisions establishing this system primarily focus on normal government formation procedures, presidential appointment processes, and removal mechanisms, but reveal significant gaps in addressing potential deadlock situations. Extensive research into the Constitution of Guyana, including the 1980 constitution with its 1996 reforms, and various legal analyses fail to reveal explicit tie-breaking mechanisms for scenarios where no party achieves a plurality [5]. The constitutional text references “Election of President” in Article 91 and related provisions, but these refer to the parliamentary process rather than separate presidential elections, and do not address deadlock resolution procedures.

This absence of clear constitutional guidance suggests that such scenarios were either considered unlikely by the constitutional framers or were intended to be resolved through political negotiation rather than predetermined legal mechanisms. The constitution’s focus on transition provisions, service commissions, and electoral procedures demonstrates careful attention to institutional continuity. Yet, the lack of specific deadlock resolution mechanisms creates a potential constitutional vacuum in these scenarios. Unlike other Commonwealth Caribbean systems where governors-general might exercise discretionary powers to invite the leader most likely to command parliamentary confidence to form a government, Guyana’s executive presidency eliminates this traditional safety valve.

The constitutional requirement that the president must maintain the confidence of the National Assembly becomes particularly relevant in deadlock scenarios, creating strong incentives for coalition formation and power-sharing arrangements. Article 106 of the constitution establishes that if the government is defeated by a vote of no confidence, the president and cabinet must resign unless the National Assembly is dissolved and new elections are called within three months [6]. This provision, tested during the 2018 no-confidence motion that ultimately led to the 2020 elections, demonstrates how parliamentary confidence directly affects executive power, making coalition-building essential for governmental stability in hung parliament situations.

The September 1st election takes place against a backdrop of unprecedented political fragmentation that makes deadlock scenarios more plausible than in previous electoral cycles. The breakdown of coalition talks between APNU and the AFC, with the People’s National Congress insisting on leader Aubrey Norton while the AFC maintained its opposition to Norton leading the ticket, fundamentally alters the electoral mathematics that have defined Guyanese politics for decades [7]. This split opposition creates multiple pathways for vote division, which could produce a fragmented parliament where no single party achieves clear dominance.

The Alliance For Change’s decision to contest independently represents more than tactical political maneuvering; it reflects more profound ideological and strategic differences that could reshape the country’s political landscape. The AFC’s criticism of Norton’s leadership and its insistence on maintaining an independent political identity suggest that even post-election coalition formation might prove challenging, particularly if neither major opposition party achieves sufficient seats to claim governmental authority credibly. The party’s strategy, as articulated by presidential candidate Nigel Hughes, explicitly aims to prevent any single party from achieving majority control, potentially relegating the governing PPP/C to minority status and forcing coalition arrangements [8].

President Ali’s timing of the election announcement during Independence Day celebrations drew criticism from opposition parties, who characterized it as inappropriate partisan politicking. Meanwhile, allegations of intimidation campaigns aimed at reducing the contest to just two parties highlighted the charged political atmosphere surrounding the electoral process [9]. These tensions, combined with ongoing questions about the Guyana Elections Commission’s readiness to manage credible elections, create an environment where disputed results or narrow margins could exacerbate constitutional uncertainties about government formation.

The context of oil wealth adds another dimension to these electoral calculations, as control of the presidency determines oversight of the Natural Resource Fund and the country’s petroleum revenue management. With Guyana’s oil production reaching new milestones and billions of dollars in revenue at stake, the constitutional mechanisms for resolving deadlocks take on heightened significance. The party that successfully navigates potential coalition negotiations would control not just governmental power but the trajectory of the country’s oil-driven economic transformation, making the stakes of constitutional uncertainty particularly acute for Guyana’s democratic and economic future.

In the absence of explicit constitutional tie-breaking procedures, the practical resolution of deadlock scenarios would likely unfold through intensive political negotiations that test the maturity and democratic commitment of Guyana’s political leadership. The most probable outcome of a tie situation would be the formation of a coalition government, either through a formal agreement between the tied parties or through one party’s successful negotiation with smaller parties or independents. Guyana’s political history demonstrates that such arrangements are feasible, most notably through the APNU+AFC coalition, which governed from 2015 to 2020. However, the ultimate breakdown of that partnership also illustrates the challenges inherent in maintaining coalition unity.

The mechanics of coalition formation in a tie scenario would involve extensive negotiations over cabinet positions, policy priorities, and power-sharing arrangements that could fundamentally alter the nature of governance in Guyana. The party that proves more successful in these negotiations would ultimately secure the presidency and form the government. Still, the process could take considerable time, potentially creating extended periods of political uncertainty and caretaker government arrangements. The constitutional provisions requiring the presidential appointment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet necessitate clear agreements on executive authority distribution, making coalition negotiations particularly complex in Guyana’s presidential system.

The role of smaller parties and independent candidates becomes magnified in deadlock scenarios, as their support could prove decisive in determining governmental control. The 2020 election saw smaller parties collectively secure one seat through the remainder allocation process, demonstrating that even minimal parliamentary representation can influence coalition mathematics [10]. In a tie scenario, such parties would wield disproportionate influence over government formation, potentially extracting significant policy concessions or ministerial positions in exchange for their support. This dynamic could lead to more inclusive governance arrangements but might also create instability if coalition partners pursue conflicting agendas.

The Guyana Elections Commission would play a crucial role in any tie scenario, as the official body responsible for declaring election results and managing the transition process. GECOM’s procedures for result declaration and certification could become critical if legal challenges or disputes arise over seat allocation, particularly given the commission’s controversial role in the aftermath of the 2020 election. The commission’s interpretation of electoral laws and regulations may influence how ties are resolved, especially if remainder calculations or other technical aspects of the Hare-Quota system become contested. However, the commission’s mandate is limited to electoral administration rather than government formation, leaving political negotiations as the primary mechanism for resolving deadlocks.

The international dimensions of potential deadlock scenarios extend far beyond Guyana’s borders, given the country’s strategic importance in regional geopolitics and its emergence as a major oil producer. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM), which played a significant role in mediating the 2020 election crisis, is likely to be called upon again to facilitate dialogue and encourage the democratic resolution of constitutional deadlocks. The organization’s commitment to democratic governance and peaceful transitions, enshrined in various regional agreements, creates both opportunities and obligations for regional intervention in crisis situations.

The broader international community, including the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and other democratic partners, would closely monitor any deadlock scenario given their substantial investments in Guyana’s democratic development and economic partnerships. The 2020 election demonstrated how international pressure and diplomatic engagement could influence domestic political processes, with various international observers and diplomatic missions playing active roles in encouraging adherence to democratic norms [11]. In a tie scenario, such international engagement could prove crucial in encouraging political leaders to pursue negotiated solutions rather than constitutional confrontation.

The oil industry’s international stakeholders, including ExxonMobil and other major petroleum companies, would also have significant interests in ensuring political stability and constitutional continuity. The billions of dollars in investments and future revenue streams dependent on stable governance create powerful economic incentives for the peaceful resolution of political deadlocks. However, this international economic interest could also complicate domestic political negotiations if external actors are perceived as favoring particular outcomes or coalition arrangements.

The precedent established by any deadlock resolution would have implications extending throughout the Caribbean region, where several countries operate similar Westminster-style parliamentary systems with elements of proportional representation. Guyana’s experience could influence constitutional reform discussions in other Caribbean nations and contribute to regional understanding of how hybrid presidential-parliamentary systems function under stress. The success or failure of democratic institutions in managing constitutional uncertainty would either strengthen or weaken arguments for similar electoral systems throughout the region, making Guyana’s experience a potential model for democratic resilience or a cautionary tale about institutional design.

The potential for deadlock scenarios highlights fundamental questions about constitutional design and democratic governance that extend beyond immediate electoral concerns to the long-term stability and effectiveness of Guyana’s political system. The absence of explicit tie-breaking mechanisms in the current constitutional framework suggests areas where reform might strengthen democratic institutions and provide greater certainty for future electoral cycles. Constitutional scholars and political scientists have long debated the merits of different approaches to deadlock resolution, from automatic runoff provisions to enhanced roles for neutral arbiters in government formation processes.

The experience of other democracies offers various models for addressing hung parliament situations that could inform potential constitutional reforms in Guyana. Some systems provide for automatic dissolution and new elections if no government can be formed within specified timeframes. In contrast, others enhance the role of heads of state in facilitating coalition negotiations. The German model of constructive votes of no confidence, which requires opposition parties to propose alternative governments rather than simply defeating existing ones, represents another approach to ensuring governmental stability in fragmented parliaments.

However, any constitutional reform process in Guyana would need to navigate the complex political dynamics that have historically made such changes difficult to achieve. The current constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly for most amendments, meaning that constitutional reform would itself require the kind of cross-party cooperation that deadlock scenarios might make more difficult to achieve [12]. The irony of needing political consensus to create mechanisms for managing political deadlock illustrates the challenges inherent in constitutional design and reform processes.

The context of oil wealth adds urgency to these constitutional considerations, as the stakes of governmental control have increased dramatically with the rise of petroleum revenue flows. The Natural Resource Fund’s governance structure and the presidential powers over oil revenue management mean that constitutional deadlocks could have immediate economic consequences affecting the country’s development trajectory. Future constitutional reforms may need to consider not only political representation and government formation, but also the management of natural resource wealth in ways that ensure continuity and transparency, regardless of electoral outcomes.

The September 1st election thus represents more than a choice between competing political parties; it constitutes a test of institutional resilience and democratic maturity that could shape constitutional development for generations to come. Whether the electoral system produces clear winners or forces the country to navigate uncharted constitutional territory, the experience will provide valuable lessons about the strengths and limitations of Guyana’s democratic framework. The outcome will influence not only immediate governance arrangements but also longer-term discussions about constitutional reform and institutional strengthening in an era of unprecedented economic transformation.

The mathematics of democracy in Guyana reveals both the sophistication and the vulnerabilities of electoral systems designed to balance representation with governance. As voters prepare for the September 1st election, they participate in a process that typically produces clear outcomes through proportional representation, yet contains within it the potential for constitutional scenarios that would test the very foundations of democratic governance. The theoretical possibility of exact ties between parties, while statistically improbable, illuminates broader questions about institutional design, coalition politics, and democratic resilience that extend far beyond mathematical calculations.

The fragmentation of the political landscape, with the AFC’s decision to contest independently and the resulting six-way competition for parliamentary seats, creates electoral dynamics that make deadlock scenarios more plausible than in previous cycles. While the Hare Quota system’s remainder allocation process typically prevents exact ties, the complex interaction between regional and national seat distributions in a fragmented political environment could produce the kind of parliamentary arithmetic that challenges existing constitutional frameworks. The absence of explicit tie-breaking mechanisms in Guyana’s constitution reflects broader assumptions about electoral outcomes that may no longer hold in an era of increased political competition and coalition instability.

The resolution of any potential deadlock would ultimately depend on the country’s leadership’s democratic commitment and political maturity, making the September 1st election as much a test of institutional character as of electoral preference. The party or coalition that successfully navigates potential constitutional uncertainty would not only secure governmental control but also establish precedents for democratic governance that could influence the country’s political development for decades. In an oil-rich nation where the stakes of governmental control have never been higher, the mathematics of democracy takes on profound significance for both immediate governance and long-term constitutional stability.

The experience, whether it yields clear winners or necessitates navigation of uncharted constitutional territory, will provide valuable insights into the resilience of democratic institutions under pressure and the adaptability of electoral systems to shifting political realities. As Guyana continues its transformation from one of the hemisphere’s poorest countries to a major oil producer, the strength and flexibility of its democratic institutions will prove as important as its natural resource wealth in determining the nation’s future trajectory. The September 1st election thus represents not just a choice between competing visions of governance, but a fundamental test of democratic resilience in an era of unprecedented change and opportunity.

References

[1] Guyana Business Journal. “Counting Power: How Guyana Divides Seats in Parliament—and Why the Math Matters.” May 31, 2025. https://guyanabusinessjournal.com/2025/05/counting-power-how-guyana-divides-seats-in-parliament-and-why-the-math-matters/

[2] Guyana Elections Commission. “2020 General and Regional Elections Results.” March 2020. https://www.gecom.org.gy/

[3] Inter-Parliamentary Union. “Guyana March 2020 Election Results.” https://data.ipu.org/parliament/GY/GY-LC01/election/GY-LC01-E20200302

[4] Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana. “Article 91: Election of President.” 1980 with 1996 reforms. https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Guyana/guyana96.html

[5] Organization of American States. “Laws of Guyana Constitution.” https://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/mesicic2_guy_constitution.pdf

[6] Constitution of Guyana. “Article 106: No Confidence Motions.” https://www.parliament.gov.gy/Constitution%20of%20the%20Cooperatiive%20Republic%20of%20Guyana.pdf

[7] Guyana Times. “After months of talking: PNC/APNU & AFC still deadlocked on terms for coalition.” April 1, 2025. https://guyanatimesgy.com/months-after-talking-pnc-apnu-afc-still-deadlocked-on-terms-for-coalition/

[8] iNews Guyana. “AFC confirms conspiracy to relegate PPP to minority Government status.” July 27, 2025. https://inewsguyana.com/afc-confirms-conspiracy-to-relegate-ppp-to-minority-government-status/

[9] Office of the President, Guyana. “President Ali signs proclamations to dissolve Parliament.” July 3, 2025. https://www.facebook.com/OPGuyana/posts/1043634011228179/

[10] Guyana Elections Commission. “Final Results Declaration 2020.” March 2020.

[11] University of Chicago International Law Journal. “‘Nah tek yuh mattie eye fuh see’: U.S. Involvement in the 2020 Guyanese Election.” https://cjil.uchicago.edu/online-archive/nah-tek-yuh-mattie-eye-fuh-see-us-involvement-2020-guyanese-election

[12] Constitution of Guyana. “Article 164: Constitutional Amendment Procedures.” https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Guyana_2016

Guyana Business Journal
Aug 08, 2025

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board welcomes reflections and submissions at terrence.blackman@guyanabusinessjournal.com.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

Thank you for standing with us.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman

Guyana Business Journal

August 8, 2025 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts