Diaspora Engagement

Gold, Glamour, and the Gamble: The WIN Phenomenon and the Future of Guyanese Democracy

GBJ Editorial | Sunday Edition | July 2025

When motorcycles and speedboats become political currency, democracy itself is being renegotiated.

In recent months, the Guyanese political landscape has been disrupted by a new and curious phenomenon: the emergence of We Invest in Nationhood (WIN)—a political movement founded and led by businessman Azruddin Mohammed. To the casual observer, it may appear to be a campaign of largesse: generous donations, village visits, and gleaming motorcades. But beneath the spectacle lies a more complex question: What does the rise of Mohammed—and the movement he now fronts—say about the state of governance, accountability, and opportunity in a rapidly transforming Guyana?

Mohammed is no ordinary political entrant. He is a son of the country’s most prominent gold dealer, a financier of elite drag racing, and a donor known for redistributing motorcycles, boats, and homes to underserved communities. In some quarters, this has earned him a “village benefactor” reputation; in others, suspicion and scrutiny. His wealth accumulation, business dealings, and U.S. sanctions—including allegations of under-invoicing luxury imports and circumventing export duties—raise serious concerns. Still, for a significant portion of the population, particularly in poor urban, interior, and riverine communities, Mohammed represents something few political actors have ever embodied: presence.

He is there, in person. He listens. He gives. And, perhaps most importantly in an electoral climate colored by disillusionment, he promises difference.

Yet, the WIN movement is defined as much by what it says as by what it does not say. There is, to date, no publicly articulated position on the Sovereign Wealth Fund. No stance on oil contract renegotiation. No framework for local content governance. No position on whether the Natural Resource Fund should prioritize debt reduction, infrastructure investment, or direct cash transfers. No vision for how oil revenues should reshape the social contract between the state and citizens. Its platform leans on generalities—empowerment, equity, youth, green development—but sidesteps the hard questions of how the state should mediate between capital and citizenship in an oil-producing republic.

This vagueness might be tactical. WIN has absorbed elements of ANUG, borrowed rhetoric from civil society, and wrapped its message in a populist idiom that positions it as an outsider force against the traditional PPP and PNCR establishment. Under Guyana’s proportional representation system, even 5-7% of the national vote could translate into 3-4 parliamentary seats—enough to play kingmaker in a fragmented legislature. But if WIN is to be more than a vehicle for elite power repositioning, it must go further. It must articulate policy. It must subject itself to scrutiny. And it must explain how it proposes to transform the structural conditions that have long deprived ordinary Guyanese of basic services, good jobs, and institutional trust.

We are witnessing the commodification of credibility—personality filling the vacuum left by weak institutions, spectacle substituting for governance. Where the electorate is fragmented, even a modest mobilization of resources—particularly when paired with smart electoral mathematics and the Hare quota system—can yield outsized parliamentary leverage.

The WIN phenomenon, then, is not simply about Azruddin Mohammed. It is about us. About the kind of politics we have allowed. About the credibility crisis of traditional parties. About the underperformance of state institutions and the incentive structures that reward charisma over clarity, and patronage over policy.

WIN may not win. But even if it doesn’t, its emergence marks a pivotal inflection point. It reflects the political volatility of the oil era—a volatility born of unmet expectations, rising inequality, and an information ecosystem where money, memes, and mistrust travel faster than manifestos. For Guyana to thrive in this decade of transformation, it must rise above transactionalism and demand governance rooted in transparency, accountability, and long-term vision.

Oil wealth offers us a once-in-a-century opportunity to rebuild Guyana’s social contract. The WIN phenomenon—win or lose—signals that this contract cannot be written in Georgetown boardrooms alone. It must be forged in village squares, negotiated in parliament, and anchored not in gifts, but in guarantees, not in promises, but in plans.

– Guyana Business Journal Editorial Board

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

The Joinder Dilemma: How Electoral Mathematics Could Reshape Guyana’s Political Landscape

By Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman & Rennie Parris, MBA
For the Guyana Business Journal | July 2025

In a Georgetown office this June, Alliance For Change Chairman David Patterson reached a decision that could determine not just his party’s political future, but who would control hundreds of billions in oil revenue, transforming one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. The document before him contained GECOM’s latest interpretation of Guyana’s joinder laws—mathematical formulas that would determine whether smaller opposition parties survived the upcoming electoral competition or became marginalized in the oil era’s political realignment.

Patterson’s decision was unequivocal: no joinder arrangements. His June 2025 announcement reflected a prescient understanding of electoral mathematics that would prove remarkably accurate when GECOM issued its formal clarifications weeks later. “Only the party with the most votes will get its persons extracted to go to Parliament,” Patterson declared to Stabroek News. “It is not fair to the other parties who would have put in much work to then get nothing.”

His prediction was based on a careful reading of the Representation of the People Act and anticipation of how electoral authorities would interpret joinder provisions. Patterson warned that “a binding agreement has no pull on who will go to parliament because GECOM only recognises the party with the most votes,” suggesting he foresaw that mathematical formulas would override political agreements between joinder partners.

Patterson’s fears would prove prophetic. On July 10, 2025, GECOM’s statutory meeting concluded “extensive deliberations about Joinder of Lists” with technical precision that confirmed the AFC Chairman’s worst expectations. The Commission’s determination, they announced, “was premised entirely on the legal framework”—exactly the rigid interpretation Patterson had anticipated.

The mathematical constraints were elegantly worded but potentially devastating in practice. GECOM declared that “each party in the joinder retains its own Representative and Deputy Representative for the purpose of the extraction of candidates to become Members of the National Assembly. Therefore, it is ONLY the Representative or Deputy Representative of the Party(ies) that are allocated seats can do such extraction.” The bureaucratic language validated Patterson’s concerns: only parties that won seats through mathematical formulas could select parliamentary representatives.

Most significantly, GECOM’s clarification of single-seat scenarios precisely matched Patterson’s predictions: “if there is only one seat won by the combination, that seat shall go to the Party that received the largest number of votes among all of the parties in the combination.” No rotation would be permitted. No sharing mechanisms could override mathematical outcomes. Political agreements between parties would become subordinate to electoral arithmetic—exactly as Patterson had warned.

This decision eliminated prospects for a unified opposition against the governing People’s Progressive Party/Civic, a development that may prove strategically advantageous for the incumbent party overseeing Guyana’s oil boom. The PPP/C, which has maintained remarkable unity since returning to power in 2020, observes the opposition fragmentation with considerable strategic interest. As the party controlling oil revenue allocation and development policy, the PPP/C benefits significantly from opposition disarray, particularly when that disarray is institutionalized through mathematical mechanisms that prevent effective coalition-building.

PPP General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo has noted the irony that opposition parties are “fragmenting precisely when they should be uniting to challenge our record on oil revenue management.” The governing party’s confidence appears well-founded: while opposition parties exhaust themselves navigating joinder mathematics, the PPP/C maintains unified control over decisions affecting tens of billions in oil revenue distribution, infrastructure development, and sovereign wealth fund management.

The People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), traditionally Guyana’s largest opposition party and the PPP/C’s historical rival, faces its own strategic calculations regarding the dilemma of joining forces. Under the leadership of Aubrey Norton, the PNCR has maintained relative organizational unity while smaller opposition parties struggle with mathematical subordination. This positioning allows the PNCR to potentially benefit from both opposition fragmentation and its own status as the most viable single alternative to PPP/C governance.

Norton’s strategy appears to involve allowing smaller parties to exhaust themselves in joinder arrangements while the PNCR preserves its institutional identity and voter base. This approach recognizes that in an oil-rich economy, the traditional two-party dynamic between PPP/C and PNCR may reassert itself as smaller parties discover the mathematical constraints of fragmented competition. The PNCR’s ability to remain organizationally coherent while others fragment could position it as the primary beneficiary if joinder arrangements fail to deliver meaningful representation for smaller opposition voices.

But Patterson’s calculation revealed a broader challenge: Guyana’s electoral mathematics had created a system that could systematically marginalize smaller parties, regardless of their democratic legitimacy, potentially consolidating power between the oil-revenue-controlling PPP/C and its traditional challenger, the PNCR. As democracies worldwide grapple with increasing political fragmentation and resource wealth management, Guyana’s joinder experiment provides an important case study of whether mathematical precision can coexist with democratic representation when substantial natural resource revenues are at stake.

While Patterson was rejecting joinder arrangements, businessman Azruddin Mohamed—facing US sanctions for alleged tax evasion on gold exports and local charges for false tax declarations—was implementing a strategy that would reshape the opposition landscape and potentially influence control over Guyana’s oil-powered economic transformation. Mohamed’s claim was remarkable: his newly formed We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party commanded 65% support in internal polling. If accurate, this US-sanctioned businessman could significantly alter traditional opposition dynamics and position himself as a key voice in decisions affecting hundreds of billions in oil revenue.

Mohamed’s approach demonstrated the practical mathematics of modern political survival. Despite claiming substantial support, he recognized that effective parties require organizational infrastructure to convert votes into power. In late June 2025, he executed a strategic move that reverberated through Georgetown’s political establishment: WIN would absorb A New and United Guyana (ANUG). The merger announcement on June 28 represented a corporate-style consolidation: ANUG would join “under the WIN banner,” exchanging independence for access to Mohamed’s financial resources and claimed voter appeal. For ANUG, facing potential marginalization in a 22-party field, the arrangement offered political viability. For Mohamed, it provided organizational legitimacy and institutional structure that financial resources alone could not deliver.

The consequences materialized immediately, illustrating the human and institutional costs of navigating politics in an oil-rich democracy where the stakes of representation have been amplified exponentially. ANUG began experiencing leadership departures within hours. Ralph Ramkarran, the respected former Speaker of the National Assembly, resigned in protest. Attorney Timothy Jonas followed. The party that had positioned itself as an institutional alternative to traditional politics was fragmenting over an alliance with a sanctioned businessman. This development highlights how oil wealth can reshape political calculations and force uncomfortable choices between principles and potential access to resource decision-making.

This development demonstrated precisely how joinder arrangements could reshape electoral dynamics, with established parties potentially sacrificing institutional identity to survive in an increasingly fragmented political environment where control over oil revenue distribution makes parliamentary representation extraordinarily valuable. The PPP/C, observing these opposition dynamics from the security of unified governance, has noted how resource wealth intensifies political competition while making unity more difficult to achieve. As one PPP/C strategist privately observed, “When the prize is influence over hundreds of billions in oil revenue, every party wants a seat at the table, but the mathematics ensure only the largest can actually get one.”

From the PNCR’s perspective, the WIN-ANUG fragmentation validates their strategy of maintaining organizational independence rather than pursuing joinder arrangements. Norton’s approach recognizes that oil wealth has made the traditional two-party competition between PPP/C and PNCR more significant than multi-party fragmentation. By remaining unified while other opposition parties exhaust themselves in mathematical subordination, the PNCR positions itself as the sole credible alternative for voters seeking to influence oil revenue governance through electoral choice.

September 1, 2025 represents a significant electoral milestone. Twenty-two political parties initially submitted symbols to contest what may be the most consequential election in Guyana’s post-independence history. The outcome will determine control over a nation transformed by offshore oil discoveries worth hundreds of billions of dollars—making this small South American country an important test case for how democracies manage natural resource wealth while preserving political pluralism. Section 22(1) of the Representation of the People Act contains provisions that could fundamentally alter this democratic competition, with implications extending beyond Guyana’s borders to democracies worldwide facing similar challenges of political fragmentation and resource control.

The challenge facing opposition parties is substantial: join forces with larger parties and risk mathematical marginalization in parliament, or compete independently and face potential irrelevance in a 22-party competition. The WIN-ANUG alliance illustrates this dilemma clearly. Mohamed’s financial resources and claimed voter support established WIN as the dominant partner, relegating ANUG to junior status despite bringing decades of political experience. The mathematical formulas governing joinder arrangements would ensure that if the alliance won seats, WIN’s vote totals would determine representation—regardless of any political agreements between the partners. For Guyana’s opposition, this represents a fundamental choice between mathematical efficiency and political autonomy in an oil era where the stakes of representation have increased dramatically.

GECOM’s subsequent July 2025 clarifications would vindicate smaller parties’ concerns about the joinder mechanism. The commission’s statement was technically precise: “Providing the combination (of parties) won seats in the National Assembly, an electoral quota needs to be established within the combination to determine how seats would be distributed therein. The electoral quota is determined by dividing the total number of valid votes received by the combination by the number of seats allocated to the combination.”

This framework confirmed what Patterson had anticipated: mathematics, rather than political agreements, would determine representation outcomes. GECOM had systematically removed political negotiation from democratic representation, replacing discretionary arrangements with algorithmic precision.

The Commission’s guidance validated exactly why Patterson had rejected joinder arrangements in June. GECOM stated that while parties could form alliances, “ballots are not cast for the combination; The Parties in the combination will be listed separately on the ballot paper. The combination is treated as one List for the purpose of seat allocation.” The mechanism confirmed Patterson’s prediction that individual party identities would be subsumed into mathematical calculations where only vote totals determine outcomes.

Most significantly, GECOM’s ruling on single-seat scenarios proved Patterson’s concerns entirely justified. The Commission ruled that in regions where a joinder won only one parliamentary seat, “that seat shall go to the Party that received the largest number of votes among all of the parties in the combination, pouring cold water on any plans to rotate a seat.” Political agreements could not override this mathematical framework. Regardless of smaller parties’ contributions to alliance success, only the largest partner would gain representation—precisely what Patterson had predicted.

The WIN-ANUG alliance demonstrates this mathematical framework in practice. Despite ANUG’s established political infrastructure and experience, the merger terms acknowledged mathematical reality: WIN’s claimed voter support established it as the dominant partner. ANUG exchanged independence for potential survival, but mathematical formulas would ultimately determine whether this sacrifice translated into actual representation.

Consider the mathematical scenarios that smaller parties now face: three opposition parties form a joinder alliance, seeking to challenge the PPP/C’s position. They win three parliamentary seats through their combined 90,000 votes. Party A, the WIN equivalent, contributed 60,000 votes. Party B, the ANUG equivalent, contributed 20,000. Party C contributed 10,000. The mathematical allocation proceeds systematically. The internal quota becomes 30,000 votes per seat. Party A receives 2 seats through direct calculation. Party B receives 0 seats initially, but wins the final seat through “largest remainder” calculations. Party C receives no representation. Their 10,000 voters—11% of the alliance—achieve no parliamentary presence.

Party C’s candidates return to private life. Their voters’ voices are absent from parliament. Their contribution to opposition success results in complete exclusion from power—and from any influence over how Guyana’s oil revenues are managed. In a country where oil revenues are projected to exceed $100 billion over the next decade, mathematical exclusion from parliament means exclusion from the most significant economic decisions in the nation’s history.

This mathematical reality has profound implications for the major parties’ strategic positioning. The PPP/C, as the incumbent party overseeing oil revenue management, benefits significantly from any system that fragments opposition representation. Bharrat Jagdeo has noted that “while opposition parties argue about mathematics, we focus on managing the people’s resources responsibly.” The governing party’s confidence reflects their understanding that mathematical constraints on opposition unity directly strengthen their position in controlling oil wealth distribution.

The PNCR’s Norton has taken a different approach, arguing that the joinder dilemma demonstrates why voters should support “proven, unified opposition rather than experimental alliances that may produce no representation at all.” This positioning allows the PNCR to present itself as the only viable alternative for voters seeking to influence oil revenue governance, while smaller parties exhaust themselves in mathematical exercises that may yield no parliamentary influence over resource decisions.

The oil wealth context transforms these mathematical calculations from abstract electoral theory into concrete questions about economic governance. With ExxonMobil and partners extracting oil worth billions annually, every parliamentary seat represents potential influence over revenue allocation, environmental oversight, and development planning that will shape Guyana for generations.

Patterson’s June political analysis proved remarkably prescient when GECOM’s July clarifications validated his concerns about the mathematical constraints inherent in joinder arrangements. When he had told Stabroek News that “a binding agreement has no pull on who will go to parliament because GECOM only recognises the party with the most votes,” he was accurately predicting the Commission’s eventual rule that “it is ONLY the Representative or Deputy Representative of the Party(ies) that are allocated seats can do such extraction.” His anticipation that political agreements between joinder partners would become irrelevant proved correct when GECOM’s mathematical formulas were formally announced to determine seat allocation.

His assessment had been pragmatic and prophetic: “Obviously no one wants to work hard and then see no return for that work.” This prediction directly anticipated GECOM’s mathematical architecture that could render smaller parties invisible regardless of their contribution to winning coalitions. Patterson had correctly understood that under the law’s strict interpretation, the AFC could invest substantial resources in a joinder arrangement, mobilize significant voter support, and contribute to electoral victory, only to watch their larger partner claim all parliamentary representation through vote arithmetic—precisely what GECOM would later confirm as the legal requirement.

The Alliance For Change’s rejection of joinder arrangements thus represented more than political strategy—it was a calculated refusal to participate in a system that Patterson correctly predicted would promise cooperation while potentially delivering mathematical subordination. His choice of political independence over electoral mathematics, determining that principled autonomy was preferable to potential exclusion within winning coalitions, proved strategically sound when GECOM’s July clarifications validated every concern he had expressed.

The internal developments within ANUG following the WIN merger provide empirical evidence of Patterson’s concerns. Ralph Ramkarran’s resignation represented more than political protest—it reflected democratic institutionalism challenged by electoral mathematics. When experienced political leaders abandon their parties rather than accept joinder arrangements, the institutional foundations face significant stress. Yet the WIN-ANUG alliance continues, demonstrating how mathematical considerations can override institutional judgments. Even as ANUG experienced key leadership departures, the mathematical advantages of the WIN alliance—access to resources and claimed voter support—proved more compelling than internal party cohesion.

The mathematical constraints vary significantly by region, creating geographic variations in political survival that offer important lessons for federal democracies worldwide. In Region 4’s 7-seat allocation, even junior partners in the WIN-ANUG alliance might achieve representation. But in single-seat regions like Region 1, joinder becomes winner-take-all competition where only the largest partner achieves representation—a dynamic that mirrors challenges facing democracies from Canada to India where resource-rich regions struggle with political representation. The institutional challenge is that regions with the most complex political needs—often rural, indigenous, or economically marginalized areas that require specific attention in oil revenue allocation—face winner-take-all dynamics that eliminate nuanced representation precisely when such representation matters most for equitable resource distribution.

A party advocating for indigenous rights might contribute essential votes to win a regional seat, only to see that seat allocated to their urban partner whose agenda emphasizes different priorities. The mathematical precision ensures their electoral contribution while potentially eliminating their representational voice. The WIN-ANUG alliance, with its urban business orientation, exemplifies this challenge. Mohamed’s wealth and business connections appeal primarily to economic development constituencies, potentially marginalizing the governance and social justice themes that originally defined ANUG. The mathematical formulas will determine whether ANUG’s original institutional vision survives within the alliance or becomes subsumed entirely.

These developments represent more than academic analysis of electoral theory—they constitute a fundamental test of democratic governance in the resource extraction era. With Guyana’s oil wealth projected to generate hundreds of billions in revenue over the coming decades, the mathematical formulas governing parliamentary representation will determine which voices shape the nation’s economic future and serve as an important precedent for other oil-rich democracies from Norway to Nigeria. The WIN party’s emergence connects directly to these oil-era dynamics, as Mohamed’s business empire positions him as someone who understands resource extraction economics despite legal controversies. His political appeal stems partly from commitments to leverage oil revenues for rapid economic development—a message that resonates across resource-rich developing nations where voters often prioritize economic growth over institutional purity.

Every seat affected by mathematical manipulation represents citizens whose interests may be absent from critical discussions about oil revenue distribution, sovereign wealth fund management, and infrastructure investment priorities. The joinder dilemma thus extends beyond electoral mechanics to questions of whether mathematical precision in democratic systems can preserve economic justice when substantial natural resource wealth is at stake globally.

As nomination day approached, the WIN-ANUG alliance created new strategic pressures for other opposition parties, while the major parties observed these developments with considerable interest. The PPP/C, confident in their unified organizational structure and incumbent advantages in managing oil revenue distribution, has generally encouraged opposition fragmentation. President Irfaan Ali has noted that “the people will judge parties based on their ability to deliver results, not mathematical arrangements,” reflecting the governing party’s confidence that opposition disunity benefits their electoral prospects while they maintain control over oil wealth allocation.

Opposition parties faced increasingly complex choices: they could compete independently, maintaining party autonomy and political identity while facing potential marginalization in a 22-party field and observing PPP/C achieve substantial parliamentary majority through opposition fragmentation. Alternatively, they could pursue joinder arrangements, potentially achieving greater collective representation while risking mathematical elimination despite contributing votes and surrendering control over parliamentary representation to electoral formulas. Full coalition offered another approach, uniting under a single party identity while losing individual party brands and political independence, and facing internal power struggles that historically challenge such arrangements. The WIN model presented a fourth option: accepting junior partner status under a dominant party, gaining access to resources and voter appeal while potentially sacrificing political principles for mathematical survival.

The PNCR’s strategic calculation differs significantly from smaller parties. As Norton has explained, “We represent the traditional alternative to PPP/C governance, and voters understand that choice clearly. While other parties experiment with mathematics, we focus on presenting a unified vision for oil revenue management and national development.” This positioning allows the PNCR to potentially benefit from opposition fragmentation while maintaining their historical role as the primary challenger to PPP/C dominance.

The WIN-ANUG alliance demonstrated that the fourth option was increasingly attractive despite its institutional costs. ANUG’s leadership changes illustrated the institutional price of mathematical survival, but the alliance continued because the alternatives appeared less viable in an environment where oil wealth has made parliamentary representation extraordinarily valuable for influencing economic policy.

Amanza Walton-Desir, the former PNC leader who founded Forward Guyana, chose an alternative approach. On July 1, 2025, she announced that Forward Guyana would join with the People’s Movement and Vigilant Political Action Committee to form the “Forward Guyana Movement.” “This is not just a political alliance; it is a movement of people who have decided that Guyana of the future cannot be left in the past,” she declared. But Walton-Desir’s coalition faced the same mathematical constraints that affected all joinder arrangements. Unlike the WIN-ANUG alliance with its clear dominant partner, the Forward Guyana Movement represented a more balanced partnership. Whether this democratic approach would produce more favorable mathematical outcomes, or would encounter the same internal allocation challenges that make joinder arrangements problematic, remained to be determined.

The joinder mechanism embodies a fundamental challenge facing democracies worldwide in an era of increasing natural resource wealth and political fragmentation: the more precisely systems attempt to translate votes into representation, the more risk they create of excluding legitimate political voices from decisions affecting generational economic opportunities. The WIN-ANUG alliance illustrates this global challenge clearly. Mohamed’s controversial background arguably should limit his democratic legitimacy, yet his financial resources and claimed voter appeal make him mathematically viable in a system that prioritizes vote arithmetic over institutional values—a pattern emerging from Brazil to Indonesia where wealthy individuals leverage electoral mathematics to achieve political legitimacy despite reputational challenges.

Meanwhile, experienced political figures like Ralph Ramkarran find themselves marginalized despite their democratic credentials, illustrating how mathematical precision can systematically exclude voices of institutional experience and knowledge precisely when such voices are most needed to guide resource-rich nations through complex economic transitions.

GECOM’s mathematical formulas operate with systematic precision, eliminating opportunities for political negotiation once votes are counted. While parties may develop elaborate agreements about seat sharing, the actual allocation follows prescribed formulas regardless of these political understandings. The result is a system that promises democratic representation while potentially delivering mathematical outcomes that may not reflect the complex political relationships that democratic cooperation requires.

As Guyana approaches its September 1 electoral decision, the WIN-ANUG alliance has established important precedents. Financial resources can override political principles when mathematical survival is at stake. Established parties will potentially sacrifice their institutional identities rather than face electoral extinction. Internal party democracy can become secondary to external electoral mathematics. Controversial figures can achieve political legitimacy through mathematical manipulation of joinder arrangements. If the WIN-ANUG alliance succeeds electorally, other parties may conclude that controversial alliances are preferable to institutional purity. If smaller parties are systematically eliminated despite contributing to winning coalitions, Guyana’s democracy may evolve toward concentration of power among wealthy individuals like Mohamed. If mathematical precision consistently overrides political representation, this raises significant questions about democratic legitimacy in the oil era.

Guyana’s joinder experiment, exemplified by the WIN-ANUG alliance, offers important lessons for democracies worldwide grappling with the twin challenges of increasing political fragmentation and massive natural resource wealth. From Norway’s oil funds to Indonesia’s palm oil revenues, resource-rich democracies face similar tensions between mathematical representation and democratic legitimacy. The alliance demonstrates how electoral mathematics can enable controversial figures to achieve political legitimacy despite legal challenges and reputational problems—a pattern that may threaten democratic institutions globally as wealthy individuals discover they can acquire political influence through sophisticated electoral engineering rather than traditional democratic organizing.

The fundamental question extends beyond Guyana’s borders: can democracy balance mathematical efficiency with political representation when wealthy individuals can use electoral arrangements to acquire political legitimacy over resources worth hundreds of billions? The answer will influence democratic development from Latin America to Africa to Southeast Asia, where similar tensions between electoral mathematics and resource control are emerging as natural resource discoveries transform political landscapes.

The WIN-ANUG alliance demonstrates that in contemporary democracy, electoral mathematics can become as influential as democratic principles when hundreds of billions in natural resource wealth amplify the stakes of political representation. Mohamed’s ability to absorb an established political party despite his legal controversies illustrates how joinder arrangements can reshape political landscapes in ways that prioritize mathematical efficiency over institutional values—offering an important preview of how electoral engineering might evolve in other resource-rich democracies facing similar pressures.

For Guyana’s opposition parties, the choice between mathematical subordination and political fragmentation has become increasingly complex as oil revenues transform their nation into one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. The WIN model offers a path to electoral relevance, but potentially at the cost of institutional principles and party autonomy—a strategic dilemma that may preview similar choices facing opposition parties in other oil-rich democracies where economic transformation outpaces political institutional development.

The major parties’ perspectives on this dilemma reflect their different positions in Guyana’s oil-era political landscape. The PPP/C, as the governing party controlling resource allocation, benefits from any system that makes opposition unity more difficult to achieve. Their confidence in the current electoral framework reflects their understanding that mathematical constraints on smaller parties ultimately strengthen the incumbent’s position. As Bharrat Jagdeo has observed, “Democracy works best when parties can demonstrate effective governance, not when they focus on electoral mathematics.”

The PNCR, as the traditional largest opposition party, views the joinder dilemma as an opportunity to reassert the historical two-party dynamic that characterized Guyana’s politics before the current fragmentation. Norton’s strategy of maintaining organizational unity while smaller parties exhaust themselves in mathematical arrangements positions the PNCR to potentially benefit from both opposition fragmentation and its own status as the most credible alternative to PPP/C governance over oil wealth management.

This dynamic suggests that oil wealth may ultimately favor larger, more established parties—both governing and opposition—while creating insurmountable obstacles for smaller political movements seeking meaningful influence over resource allocation decisions.

As nomination day concludes and the campaign season begins, the WIN-ANUG alliance stands as the most significant example of how electoral mathematics can override institutional judgment when generational wealth is at stake. Whether this alliance succeeds or fails will determine not just the immediate electoral outcomes in Guyana, but establish precedents for how democracy adapts to natural resource wealth globally, influencing the future role of money, controversy, and mathematical manipulation in democratic systems from Venezuela to Kazakhstan to Angola.

The institutional stakes are substantial for democracy itself. The mathematical frameworks have become increasingly determinative. And the future of democratic governance in the resource extraction era depends significantly on electoral equations that may favor wealth and mathematical manipulation over institutional principles and political integrity. Guyana’s September 1 election will test whether mathematical precision can coexist with democratic representation when the outcome determines control over one of the world’s largest per-capita oil endowments—a test whose results will influence political development across the global South, where similar discoveries await similar institutional reckonings.

The joinder dilemma extends beyond electoral mechanics to fundamental questions about whether democratic institutions can preserve their legitimacy and representativeness when mathematical precision meets massive natural resource wealth in an era when controversial figures worldwide are discovering they can acquire political legitimacy through sophisticated electoral engineering rather than traditional institutional democratic organizing.

References

[1] Stabroek News, “AFC says no to joinder list with any party,” June 8, 2025.
[2] Representation of the People Act, Section 22(1), Laws of Guyana.
[3] Representation of the People Act, Section 97(4), Laws of Guyana.
[4] Representation of the People Act, Section 97(5), Laws of Guyana.
[5] News Room Guyana, “Joinder parties must determine beforehand how they will split any seats they win – GECOM,” July 10, 2025.
[6] News Room Guyana, “ANUG, Mohamed’s WIN party join forces,” June 29, 2025.
[7] Demerara Waves, “ANUG, Azruddin Mohamed’s party reach agreement for elections,” June 29, 2025.
[8] Demerara Waves, “ANUG hit by resignations after deal with Azruddin Mohamed’s party,” June 29, 2025.
[9] Demerara Waves, “Azruddin Mohamed’s party symbol approved – GECOM Commissioner,” July 1, 2025.

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

Tariffs, Fiscal Policy and Trade Deficits: Lessons for the Caribbean from a Macro-Finance Perspective

An analysis of how macro-finance insights from the U.S. experience can inform Caribbean economic policy

Trade deficits have long been viewed through a narrow lens—too many imports, too few exports, end of story. But what if persistent trade imbalances reveal something more profound about an economy’s investment patterns, fiscal health, and financial stability? A groundbreaking paper by economist Collin Constantine, Girton College University of Cambridge, “Tariffs, Fiscal Policy, and the U.S. Trade Deficit: A Macro-Finance Perspective,” challenges conventional wisdom by linking trade flows with financial markets in ways that illuminate not just American economic realities but also offers crucial insights for Caribbean policymakers grappling with their own external imbalances.

Constantine’s work arrives at a pivotal moment for our region. Caribbean economies face mounting pressures from persistent current account deficits, elevated debt levels, and import dependencies that expose them to global price shocks. When food import bills exceed $5 billion annually and energy costs strain government budgets, the question isn’t whether we have an external balance problem—it’s what tools we can deploy to address it without triggering economic hardship.

The timing is particularly relevant as global trade policies shift. Recent U.S. tariff policies and their ripple effects demonstrate how the choices of major economies reverberate through smaller, trade-dependent nations like ours. Understanding the macro-financial mechanisms behind these policies—what Constantine refers to as the interplay between trade flows and financial market dynamics—can help Caribbean leaders navigate an increasingly complex global economic landscape.

This analysis will first unpack Constantine’s innovative framework, exploring how he connects short-term trade dynamics with long-term financial sustainability. We’ll then examine what his findings about optimal tariffs, fiscal policy, and investment patterns mean for Small Island Developing States. Finally, we’ll translate these insights into actionable policy recommendations for the Caribbean context, where the stakes of getting the external balance wrong can mean the difference between sustainable growth and economic crisis.

Traditional trade models focus on goods flowing across borders—exports going out, imports coming in, with exchange rates adjusting to balance the books. Constantine’s breakthrough lies in recognizing that modern economies don’t operate in this simplified world. Instead, trade flows interact dynamically with financial markets, investor sentiment, and capital movements in ways that fundamentally alter how policy tools, such as tariffs, actually work.

At the heart of Constantine’s model are two intersecting forces that determine both trade balance and exchange rate outcomes. The first is what he calls the Short-Run Trade Balance Schedule, which captures the immediate relationship most economists expect: when a currency weakens, exports become cheaper and imports more expensive, improving the trade balance. But Constantine adds a crucial twist—valuation effects. When the dollar falls, Americans’ foreign assets become worth more in dollar terms, potentially boosting wealth and spending. This financial channel can either amplify or offset the traditional trade response.

The second force is the Long-Run External Balance Schedule, which introduces a constraint often ignored in policy debates: any trade deficit must be financially sustainable over time. A country can’t borrow indefinitely to finance imports without eventually facing a reckoning. Constantine demonstrates that a stronger currency can paradoxically worsen the long-term trade balance because it reduces the domestic value of foreign assets, thereby cutting investment income and necessitating a more favorable trade performance to maintain external stability.

When plotted together, these schedules intersect at an equilibrium that satisfies both immediate market forces and long-term sustainability constraints. Constantine’s empirical analysis reveals that U.S. data from 1990 to 2024 exhibit a distinctive “clockwise convergence” pattern around this equilibrium, suggesting that his framework captures a real aspect of how trade and financial forces interact.

Perhaps Constantine’s most provocative finding is that America’s persistent trade deficits reflect chronic underinvestment at home. Using calibrated model estimates, he demonstrates that the U.S. capital stock has fallen below optimal “Golden Rule” levels—the benchmark at which investment maximizes long-term consumption possibilities. This diagnosis reframes the entire debate over the trade deficit. Instead of viewing trade imbalances as primarily a result of foreign competition or currency manipulation, Constantine suggests they signal domestic economic weaknesses. When a country fails to invest adequately in its productive capacity—such as factories, infrastructure, and technology—it must import more to meet demand while its export potential stagnates.

For policymakers, this insight transforms tariffs from a simple protectionist tool into a potential macro-prudential instrument. Rather than just shielding domestic industries from foreign competition, tariffs might help redirect resources toward productive investment by making domestic production relatively more attractive.

The traditional tariff story goes like this: impose duties on imports, domestic prices rise, foreign goods become less competitive, and the trade balance improves. Constantine’s macro-finance model reveals a far more complex chain reaction that helps explain why real-world tariff outcomes often surprise policymakers.

When the U.S. imposes tariffs, Constantine’s model predicts a cascade of financial market adjustments that he terms “financial decoupling.” Tariffs directly increase import prices, pushing up overall price levels and leading markets to expect higher future inflation. As inflation expectations rise, long-term interest rates typically increase as investors demand compensation for the erosion of purchasing power. Foreign investors may also perceive tariff policies as increasing country risk, demanding higher returns on U.S. assets.

Higher borrowing costs and increased uncertainty make U.S. financial assets less attractive. International investors begin pulling money out of American stocks and bonds, seeking better risk-adjusted returns elsewhere. Capital outflows and higher discount rates depress asset values. Stock markets may fall, bond prices decline, and household wealth suffers a significant loss. Faced with higher financing costs and reduced wealth, American consumers and businesses cut spending and investment. This reduction in domestic absorption automatically reduces import demand.

Here’s where Constantine’s model diverges sharply from traditional thinking. Instead of tariffs strengthening the currency by reducing the number of dollars spent on imports, capital outflows create an excess supply of dollars on foreign exchange markets, leading to depreciation. This is “financial decoupling”—the normal positive relationship between interest rates and currency strength breaks down when investor confidence is shaken.

The ultimate irony is that tariffs do improve the trade balance in Constantine’s model, but through a painful adjustment process that resembles a financial crisis more than a smooth policy intervention. The trade deficit shrinks because domestic demand collapses and the currency weakens, making exports more competitive—but at the cost of economic turbulence and reduced living standards. Constantine’s calibrations suggest that this adjustment mechanism explains puzzling episodes, such as the 2018-2019 U.S.-China trade war, when tariffs led to financial market volatility and eventual dollar weakness, rather than the currency strength many had predicted.

If tariffs are effective but cause financial disruption, what is the optimal level? Constantine estimates an optimal unilateral U.S. tariff of approximately 8.3%, which is significantly lower than traditional optimal tariff calculations that often exceed 20%. This moderate rate reflects the model’s incorporation of financial market costs. Push tariffs too high and the resulting financial disruption outweighs trade benefits. This finding suggests tariffs can serve as what Constantine calls “second-best macro-prudential instruments.” When first-best policies, such as fiscal adjustments or structural reforms, prove politically difficult, moderate tariffs may help rebalance the economy while minimizing financial instability.

Even more striking is Constantine’s calculation of the fiscal adjustment needed to eliminate the U.S. trade deficit: reducing the federal budget deficit to just 0.135% of GDP—essentially balancing the budget. Such fiscal consolidation would directly reduce domestic demand, cool import growth, and improve the external balance without triggering financial market disruptions that tariffs might cause. However, Constantine acknowledges that this level of austerity is “less feasible than moderate tariffs” given the prevailing political realities. The arithmetic may work, but the politics don’t. This tension between economic optimality and political feasibility runs throughout his analysis and proves especially relevant for Caribbean policymakers operating under similar constraints.

While Constantine focuses on the world’s largest economy with its reserve currency, Caribbean nations face external imbalances under vastly different constraints. Understanding these differences is crucial for applying his insights to our regional context. Caribbean economies exhibit many of the same external balance problems Constantine diagnoses for the U.S., but often in more acute form. Most Caribbean nations run persistent current account deficits, importing far more goods than they export while relying on tourism revenues, remittances, or commodity exports to partially offset trade gaps.

The underinvestment diagnosis resonates strongly across the region. Limited domestic production capacity necessitates a heavy reliance on imports for a wide range of goods, including food, fuel, machinery, and consumer products. The Caribbean’s food import bill ballooned from $2 billion in 2000 to nearly $5 billion by 2018, reflecting decades of underinvestment in agriculture while demand grew in tandem with population and income. Guyana’s ambitious goal to reduce CARICOM’s food import bill by 25% by 2025 exemplifies regional recognition that import dependence represents both an economic vulnerability and a policy challenge. Like Constantine’s argument about U.S. industrial capacity, Caribbean food insecurity largely reflects insufficient investment in agricultural productivity, processing capabilities, and supply chain infrastructure.

The critical difference lies in what economists refer to as “exorbitant privilege.” The U.S. can finance trade deficits by selling dollar-denominated assets to eager foreign investors who view them as safe havens. This allows the United States to run external imbalances for decades without triggering balance-of-payments crises. Caribbean economies enjoy no such luxury. Most must borrow in a foreign currency, typically U.S. dollars, at higher interest rates than those of major economies. When external imbalances become unsustainable, the adjustment comes swiftly and often painfully through currency devaluation, recession, or IMF intervention.

Consider Dominica’s current account deficits, which have reached 30% of GDP in recent years, financed by post-disaster aid and citizenship-by-investment programs. Such imbalances would be unsustainable without extraordinary external support. Similarly, Suriname’s 2020-2021 economic crisis demonstrated how quickly external imbalances can trigger currency collapse and hyperinflation when market confidence evaporates.

Constantine’s “financial decoupling” mechanism applies to Caribbean economies but typically in crisis rather than policy-adjustment contexts. When external imbalances grow too large, international investors flee, forcing dramatic and often disorderly adjustments. The key difference is choice versus compulsion. Constantine’s model describes how the U.S. might deliberately use tariffs to trigger managed adjustment. Caribbean nations often experience forced adjustments when markets lose confidence, leading to capital flight, currency depreciation, and import compression through economic contraction, rather than through policy design.

Caribbean nations have historically maintained relatively open trade regimes by necessity; however, this doesn’t preclude the strategic use of trade policy for external balance and development objectives. Most Caribbean nations already employ tariffs through CARICOM’s Common External Tariff (CET), which imposes duties of 5-20% on many imports from outside the region. These tariffs serve dual purposes: generating government revenue and providing modest protection for regional producers.

However, the CET wasn’t designed as a macro-prudential tool in Constantine’s sense. It lacks the flexibility and targeting needed to address specific external balance pressures or investment incentives. Reform might consider how tariff structures could better support regional development goals while maintaining revenue functions.

Constantine’s insights suggest that Caribbean nations might use trade policy more strategically to support priority sectors while avoiding the pitfalls of broad-based protectionism. Rather than imposing across-the-board tariffs, they could target protection to sectors where domestic production capacity already exists or can be developed within a reasonable timeframe. Protecting rice production in Guyana makes more sense than protecting automobile assembly. Time limits, enforced through automatic sunset clauses, necessitate periodic reviews of protective measures to prevent the entrenchment of inefficient protection, while providing domestic producers with clear incentives to enhance competitiveness.

Regional coordination through CARICOM frameworks allows specialization across the region. Instead of each island attempting to produce rice, coordination allows comparative advantages to emerge while reducing collective import dependence. Using tariff revenues to support the very sectors being protected—financing training, technology transfer, or infrastructure improvements that enhance competitiveness—creates positive feedback loops rather than permanent dependence on protection.

Caribbean economies face a crucial constraint Constantine’s model doesn’t fully capture: high import dependence for essential goods means tariffs directly impact the cost of living. When basic foods, medicines, and energy are heavily imported, protective tariffs can trigger social unrest if not carefully managed. Policy responses might include maintaining duty-free access for critical imports while protecting non-essential sectors, using tariff revenues to subsidize essential goods for vulnerable populations to prevent protection from becoming regressive taxation, and phasing in protective measures gradually to allow supply response while monitoring price impacts.

Constantine’s finding that fiscal austerity could theoretically eliminate trade deficits takes on special urgency in the Caribbean context, where high public debt constrains policy options and poses a threat to financial stability. Caribbean economies often exhibit strong links between fiscal and current account deficits—the “twin deficits” phenomenon. Government spending frequently goes toward imports, either directly through procurement or indirectly by boosting domestic demand, while fiscal deficits require financing that can strain the external balance.

Recent experiences illustrate this dynamic. Jamaica’s IMF-supported fiscal consolidation program significantly improved both government finances and external balance, but at the cost of a substantial economic contraction. Barbados underwent a similar adjustment in 2018-2019, achieving external balance through painful austerity.

Constantine’s insight that moderate tariffs might substitute for extreme fiscal adjustment suggests Caribbean nations could pursue more balanced policy mixes. When fiscal adjustment is necessary, they can prioritize cuts in current spending, such as wages and subsidies, over capital investments that build future productive capacity. Rather than relying solely on spending cuts, they could explore revenue measures that also support external balance, such as higher taxes on luxury imports or non-productive uses of foreign exchange. Building fiscal rules that allow for temporary deficits during economic downturns while ensuring medium-term sustainability prevents pro-cyclical tightening, which worsens recessions.

High debt service payments represent automatic current account outflows that constrain external balance. Caribbean debt levels averaging 72% of GDP create substantial foreign exchange drains through interest payments to foreign creditors. Debt reduction strategies that improve external balance include exchanging debt reduction for commitments to climate resilience investments, reducing both debt service and import dependence, particularly for energy, exploring collective approaches to debt restructuring or refinancing that might achieve better terms than individual negotiations, and where possible, developing local capital markets to reduce reliance on foreign currency borrowing.

Constantine’s concept of tariffs as macro-prudential instruments opens possibilities for broader use of policy tools to prevent unsustainable external imbalances before they trigger crises. Rather than waiting for external deficits to become unsustainable, Caribbean nations might deploy preventive measures such as limiting bank lending for imported consumer goods during periods of rapid import growth and targeting demand-driven import surges without broad economic disruption. During foreign exchange shortages, they could prioritize allocation for essential imports and productive investments over luxury consumption. Temporary licensing requirements for non-essential imports during balance-of-payments pressures allow more targeted control than broad exchange rate changes.

Developing monitoring frameworks that track external balance indicators and trigger policy responses before crises develop becomes crucial. This includes monitoring how many months of imports foreign exchange reserves can cover, with automatic policy responses when ratios fall below safe levels, tracking private sector credit expansion, particularly for consumption that might fuel import booms, and watching for sudden changes in foreign investment or domestic capital flight that might signal confidence problems.

Many external balance challenges facing individual Caribbean nations could be addressed more effectively through deeper regional integration—essentially creating a larger economic space that allows import substitution at a regional rather than national scale. A fully functional CARICOM Single Market and Economy could address external imbalances by allowing regional specialization in production while reducing collective dependence on extra-regional imports. Guyana’s agricultural expansion could supply regional markets rather than each island attempting food self-sufficiency.

Developing manufacturing and processing that uses regional inputs keeps more value-added activity within CARICOM rather than importing finished goods. Pooling regional savings for regional investment reduces dependence on external financing and improves terms for regional borrowers. Practical steps include investing in intra-regional shipping and air connections that make regional trade cost-competitive with imports from North America or Europe, reducing technical barriers to intra-regional trade through common standards and mutual recognition agreements, developing regional payment mechanisms that reduce foreign exchange costs for intra-CARICOM trade, and coordinating government purchasing to achieve economies of scale and support regional suppliers.

Two sectors offer particular promise for reducing import dependence while enhancing economic resilience: energy and food production. Caribbean energy import bills typically consume 15-20% of the country’s GDP, creating massive foreign exchange drains and exposing the region to global price volatility. Renewable energy offers a path to import substitution with multiple benefits. Abundant Caribbean solar and wind resources can substitute for imported fossil fuels while creating local employment and reducing long-term energy costs. Exploring interconnection projects that enable the sharing of renewable resources across the region enhances energy security while lowering collective dependence on imports. Promoting the adoption of electric vehicles reduces petroleum imports while supporting the deployment of renewable energy.

The CARICOM 25% food import reduction target requires coordinated investment in agricultural productivity and processing capabilities. This means investing in drought-resistant crops, precision agriculture, and climate-controlled growing systems that increase productivity while enhancing resilience. Developing regional food processing capabilities adds value to agricultural production while substituting for imported processed foods. Connecting farmers with hotels, restaurants, and institutions ensures reliable markets for increased production.

Drawing from Constantine’s macro-finance insights and Caribbean realities, effective external balance strategies should combine multiple policy tools while recognizing political and economic constraints. Immediate priorities include reducing fiscal deficits through current spending restraint while protecting capital investments and social programs, and targeting a debt-to-GDP ratio of 50-60% to restore fiscal space. Using tariff policy selectively to support sectors with genuine development potential while maintaining access to essential imports requires implementing automatic review mechanisms to prevent permanent protection of inefficient sectors. Developing early warning systems and preventive tools to address external imbalances before they become critical should include credit controls, import monitoring, and foreign exchange management tools.

Medium-term structural changes necessitate channeling public and private investment toward sectors that can substitute for imports or expand exports, with a particular focus on agriculture, renewable energy, tourism infrastructure, and digital services. Deepening CARICOM integration through transport connections, standards harmonization, and financial market development leverages integration to achieve collective import substitution that is impossible at the national level. Investing in education and skills training that support economic diversification and productivity growth should focus on the technical skills needed for agriculture, renewable energy, and digital services.

Long-term resilience building involves constructing infrastructure and economic systems that are resilient to climate change impacts, encompassing both physical resilience, such as seawalls and hurricane-resistant agriculture, and economic resilience through diversified export markets and adaptable production systems. Developing deeper domestic capital markets that can mobilize savings for productive investment while reducing dependence on external financing becomes essential. Supporting research and development, technology transfer, and innovation systems enhances productivity and competitiveness across the economy.

Constantine’s macro-finance perspective offers Caribbean policymakers a sophisticated framework for understanding the complex interactions between trade policy, fiscal management, and financial stability. His key insight—that external imbalances reflect deeper structural issues requiring coordinated policy responses—resonates strongly in a region where getting the external balance wrong can mean the difference between sustainable development and economic crisis.

The path forward requires abandoning simplistic approaches that treat trade, fiscal, and financial policies in isolation. Instead, Caribbean nations need integrated strategies that recognize how these policy areas interact and reinforce each other. A tariff isn’t just about trade—it affects inflation, fiscal revenues, and investor confidence. A fiscal deficit isn’t just about government finances—it influences import demand, external debt, and currency stability.

Most importantly, Constantine’s work reminds us that persistent external imbalances signal underlying economic weaknesses that must be addressed through structural change, not just policy adjustments. For the Caribbean, this means investing in productive capacity, enhancing regional integration, and building economic diversification that reduces vulnerability to external shocks.

The global economy is entering a period of increased protectionism, supply chain restructuring, and climate-related disruptions. Caribbean nations that develop robust frameworks for managing external balance—combining fiscal discipline, strategic trade policy, and macro-prudential tools—will be better positioned to navigate these challenges while maintaining the openness that has long served our region well.

The lesson from Constantine’s macro-finance lens is clear: successful economic management requires understanding the whole system, not just its parts. For Caribbean policymakers, this means embracing complexity while maintaining a focus on the ultimate goal: building resilient, prosperous economies that serve the needs of our people while engaging productively with the global economy.

In this light, external balance isn’t just about trade statistics—it’s about economic sovereignty, development prospects, and the capacity to chart our own course in an uncertain world. Getting it right requires both technical sophistication and political wisdom, combining the best insights from economic research with a deep understanding of Caribbean realities. Constantine’s work provides one valuable tool in that broader toolkit for building a more balanced and resilient Caribbean future.

This analysis draws from Constantine, C. (2025). “Tariffs, Fiscal Policy, and the U.S. Trade Deficit: A Macro-Finance Perspective,” along with regional data from OECD/IDB Caribbean Development Dynamics, IMF country reports, and analysis from Caribbean research institutions.

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

Letter from America: The One Big Beautiful Warning

By Terrence R. Blackman, Ph.D.

I am staring at my Western Union App this morning—one of those modern conveniences that serves as a financial lifeline between the American dream and the Caribbean reality—when I imagine a conversation that perfectly captures what’s happening in Washington these days.

A Jamaican woman was explaining to her teenage son why she was sending less money home this month. “They’re putting a tax on it now,” she said, her voice carrying that mix of resignation and indignation that we immigrants know well. “Three and a half cents on every dollar. That’s fifteen dollars less for your grandmother.” The boy, born here, raised here, looked genuinely puzzled. “But why, Mom? It’s your money.” She just shrugged. “Because they can.”

That shrug, my friends, tells you everything you need to know about what Congress calls the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—though I suspect it looks considerably less beautiful from a Western Union counter in East Flatbush than it does from the marble corridors of Capitol Hill.

The bill passed the House last month by the narrowest of margins—215 to 214—and is now making its way through the Senate, where it’s being scrutinized and reassembled like a complicated piece of furniture with instructions in a foreign language. But the basic architecture remains the same: this is America’s attempt to reshape its relationship with the world, one tax code and budget line at a time.

Now, you might reasonably ask why a piece of American domestic legislation should concern anyone beyond America’s borders. The answer lies in something that Washington has never quite grasped: that in our interconnected world, there’s no such thing as purely domestic policy when you’re the world’s largest economy. Every American decision ripples outward, and nowhere are those ripples felt more keenly than in the Caribbean, where entire communities have organized their lives around the assumption of American partnership.

Let me explain what this bill actually does, because the name—typical of modern American political marketing—tells us nothing useful. Think of it as three bills wrapped in one: a tax cut extension, a budget axe, and an immigration crackdown. The tax part extends the cuts that Donald Trump signed in 2017, which were always meant to expire at the end of this year. The budget part slashes spending on programs that help the poor. And the immigration part throws $75 billion at deportation efforts—roughly eight times what the government currently spends on removing people from the country.

If you’re keeping score at home, that’s a lot of spending cuts to pay for a lot of tax cuts, with a massive immigration enforcement expansion thrown in for good measure. The Congressional Budget Office—America’s fiscal scorekeeper—says the whole package will add about $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. But that’s Washington math, where trillion-dollar numbers are tossed around like pocket change.

The real story, though, is what this means for places like Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad, and Barbados—countries that have spent the last half-century building their development strategies around the movement of their people to and from America. That remittance tax I mentioned isn’t just a revenue raiser; it’s a philosophical statement. It states that helping your family back home is no longer just a private matter between you and your relatives—it’s now a transaction from which the U.S. government has decided to take a cut.

I’ve spent enough time in Caribbean communities here to know what remittances really mean. They’re not charitable giving in the traditional sense. They’re insurance policies, school fees, medical bills, and grocery money. They’re the economic equivalent of family ties made visible. When a nurse in Queens sends $200 to her mother in Kingston, she’s not making a political statement—she’s paying for her nephew’s school books and her father’s diabetes medication.

But Washington sees something different. It sees an untapped revenue stream, a way to raise money from people who can’t vote but can’t afford to stop sending money home either. It’s taxation without representation in its purest form, which is perhaps why it bothers me more than it seems to bother the congressmen who voted for it.

The immigration provisions are even more troubling, though they’ve received less attention in the Caribbean press. The bill allocates enough money to ICE—that’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement—to more than double its detention capacity. They’re discussing holding 100,000 people at any given time, which is roughly equivalent to the population of Spanish Town or Chaguanas. These aren’t people convicted of serious crimes, mind you. These are individuals whose primary offense is being in the wrong place at the wrong time without the necessary paperwork.

That’s the human face of policy, and it’s a face that American lawmakers rarely see. They see statistics, budgets, and political talking points. They don’t see the family on Robb Street in Georgetown wondering why the money from their son in Miami has gotten smaller, or the family in a village in Berbice trying to figure out how to pay for the new roof now that three of their biggest contributors have been sent back home.

The bill also takes an axe to the social programs that many Caribbean immigrants depend on—food stamps, Medicaid, and student loans. The theory, if you can call it that, is that making life harder for poor people will encourage them to work harder or move elsewhere. It’s a theory that has never worked anywhere it has been tried, but it’s politically popular among people who have never had to choose between rent and groceries.

What’s particularly cruel is the education provisions. The bill eliminates subsidized student loans—the kind that don’t charge interest while you’re in school—and makes it harder to qualify for Pell Grants. For a young person from the Caribbean trying to get an education in America, this is like pulling up the ladder just as they’re reaching for the next rung.

I often think of something Alistair Cooke once wrote about America’s tendency to solve problems by making them someone else’s problem. That’s what’s happening here. America has an immigration problem, so it’s going to make it Guyana’s problem by sending people back. America has a budget problem, so it’s going to make it the Caribbean’s problem by taxing remittances. America faces a political challenge with its changing demographics, so it will make it everyone’s problem by retreating from its role as a global partner.

The Senate is likely to modify some details when it inevitably passes the bill. There’s talk of raising the remittance tax, or lowering it, or applying it only to certain countries. There’s debate about the immigration enforcement funding and whether some of those Pell Grant restrictions go too far. But the basic direction seems set: America is turning inward, and its neighbors will have to adjust accordingly.

This isn’t necessarily a catastrophe for the Caribbean. Countries have faced worse challenges and survived. But it does require a fundamental rethinking of development strategies that have been built on the assumption of continued American partnership. Guyana, in particular, with its new oil wealth, has an opportunity to chart a more independent course. But that requires planning, investment, and a willingness to look beyond the familiar patterns of the past fifty years.

I was struck, reading the debates in Georgetown last week, by how little attention this bill has received in Caribbean capitals. Perhaps that’s understandable—there are local elections to fight, local budgets to balance, local problems to solve. However, this American legislation will impact more Caribbean lives than most local laws ever have.

The woman in a Western Union office probably doesn’t know about congressional budget reconciliation processes or the Senate parliamentarian’s role in determining which provisions can stay in the bill. She knows that it now costs more to help her mother pay for groceries. And that, in the end, may be the most important thing to understand about America’s One Big Beautiful Bill: its beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder.

Standing in here in Brooklyn, watching immigrant families navigate our increasingly complicated world, I can’t help but think that we’re witnessing the end of an era—not with dramatic speeches or signed treaties, but with a 3.5% tax on love letters written in dollars and cents. Perhaps that’s how eras always end: not with a bang, but with a fee.

June 29, 2025

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

Beyond Vision: Dr. Nigel Clarke’s William Demas Lecture and the Operational Challenge of Caribbean Growth

By Terrence R. Blackman, Ph.D. | GBJ Blog | June 24, 2025

At the 55th Annual Meeting of the Caribbean Development Bank—hosted for the first time in Brasília—Jamaica’s former Minister of Finance and the Public Service, Dr. Nigel Clarke, delivered the 2025 William G. Demas Memorial Lecture. Delivered with intellectual clarity and ministerial polish, the lecture was an ambitious and impassioned address to a region that has long navigated the twin tempests of economic vulnerability and institutional fragmentation.

Dr. Clarke’s lecture was rich in ideas and delivered with confidence. Yet, for all its coherence and credibility, it was also emblematic of a deeper structural challenge: how to translate regionally relevant values—such as resilience, integration, and transformation—into operationally viable plans in small, open, and heavily constrained economies. The lecture offered sound guidance. But it also underscored what is often missing from Caribbean policymaking: an economic model calibrated to the limits and possibilities of our geography, demography, and place in the global economy. It’s a call for regional cooperation and planning, which are not just desirable but essential for our collective success.

To deliver this memorial lecture is to inherit the intellectual and ethical weight of William Gilbert Demas (1929–1998), the preeminent Caribbean integrationist, economist, and institutional architect. Demas was the first Secretary-General of CARICOM and served as President of the Caribbean Development Bank from 1974 to 1988. His career embodied a commitment to regional cooperation, economic self-determination, and development planning grounded in local knowledge and expertise.

Demas was no utopian. He understood that the Caribbean’s challenges were deeply structural: limited productive capacity, exposure to global shocks, and the legacy of plantation economics. He believed in building institutions—CARICOM, the CDB, the OECS—not as ends in themselves but as tools for leveraging regional scale in a global system that rarely favors small states. In honoring Demas, one is compelled not merely to articulate aspiration but to grapple seriously with implementation. Clarke did the former eloquently. The question is whether Caribbean leaders are prepared to follow through on the latter.

Dr. Nigel Clarke is one of the Caribbean’s most compelling economic policymakers. Educated at the University of the West Indies and Oxford University—where he was a Rhodes Scholar—Clarke earned his D.Phil. in Numerical Analysis before returning to Jamaica to serve in both public and private sector roles. As Minister of Finance in 2018, he oversaw one of the most impressive macroeconomic transformations in the Caribbean: debt-to-GDP has halved, fiscal rules have been codified, and poverty rates have declined. He now serves as Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.

Clarke’s reputation is not just technocratic; it is moral. An emphasis on stability marked his tenure as a foundation for equity, transparency as a driver of reform, and credibility as a currency of national development. His lecture in honor of Demas was, in many respects, a generational handoff: from the architects of the post-independence regional order to those tasked with navigating its future.

Clarke began by situating the Caribbean’s current predicament within a rapidly deteriorating global environment. The post-pandemic recovery has been tepid, trade tensions have re-emerged—with the U.S. imposing tariff rates not seen in over a century—and global productivity growth has stagnated across both advanced and emerging markets. The net effect, Clarke argued, is that the world is entering a new phase of ‘steady but underwhelming’ growth—at precisely the moment when Caribbean economies are in dire need of strong external demand and tailwinds.

According to IMF projections, global growth has been downgraded to 2.8% in 2025 and just 3.0% in 2026. For small Caribbean economies that are deeply dependent on global supply chains, tourism, remittances, and commodity exports, these trends are ominous. They signify not just cyclical difficulty but long-term structural headwinds.

Clarke acknowledged Guyana’s extraordinary moment—its leap to high-income status driven by oil revenues, making it the fastest-growing economy in the world. But he quickly pointed out that Guyana is the exception, not the norm. The broader regional picture is more sobering. Clarke highlighted a disturbing trend of declining potential growth, especially among tourism-dependent economies. Between 1981 and 2000, these economies grew at an average potential rate of 3.3%. From 2001 to 2019, that figure fell to just 1.6%. This, Clarke warned, is a silent crisis—a structural weakening of the growth engine that, if left unaddressed, will widen the development gap between the Caribbean and the rest of the world.

“There is no magic solution to the Caribbean growth challenge,” Clarke declared. “And there is no quick fix either.” Instead, he advanced a two-pronged strategy centered on macroeconomic stability and structural reform. Stability, he emphasized, is not a luxury but a prerequisite for all other forms of development. He drew on Jamaica’s journey—from years of fiscal mismanagement and crisis to a place of hard-earned credibility—as an example of what disciplined governance can achieve.

Caribbean governments, Clarke argued, must rebuild their fiscal buffers, which are essentially reserves or savings that can be used during economic downturns or emergencies, many of which were depleted during the pandemic. He urged policymakers to strengthen fiscal frameworks, implement rational tax systems, eliminate unproductive expenditures, and invest in digital public services. Jamaica’s legislated fiscal rules were presented as a regional benchmark. Clarke also called for the expansion of sovereign wealth funds and climate resilience facilities, citing Trinidad and Tobago’s oil stabilization fund, Jamaica’s National Disaster Fund, and the regional Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) as positive but incomplete innovations.

To address the region’s chronic productivity crisis, Clarke offered five broad policy approaches. First, governments should simplify and digitize regulation, easing compliance for small and medium enterprises. Second, they must expand access to finance through stronger banks, credit registries, and regional digital payments akin to Brazil’s Pix or India’s UPI. Third, the region needs to accelerate the energy transition to reduce the crippling cost of electricity across Caribbean economies. Fourth, investment in human capital remains critical, particularly through vocational and STEAM education, as well as active labor market programs, which are initiatives designed to help people find and keep jobs. Finally, promoting inclusion by closing gender gaps and tackling youth unemployment represents both a social and economic imperative.

Clarke made a strong appeal for closing the region’s infrastructure gap through public-private partnerships (PPPs), urging governments to develop robust pipelines of PPP-ready projects. He cautioned against the inefficiencies of sequential planning and encouraged “programmatic thinking” that inspires investor confidence and expedites delivery. He reiterated his support for CARICOM’s push toward deeper integration, particularly in the areas of labor mobility and service harmonization, calling these steps essential to building scale in a region too small to compete alone.

Dr. Clarke ended his lecture on a rousing note. “Stability is not an end,” he said. “It is the beginning. The true prize is sustained, inclusive, transformative growth. That is what the Caribbean deserves.” The speech was a sweeping affirmation of regional capability and resolve. But it also left unanswered a critical question: How do we move from sound strategies to executable plans in the real world?

Here lies the core of the critique. As one regional observer aptly put it, “This is all pretty standard IMF; Clarke would not have written a word of it.” That is not a dismissal of the content but a recognition of its limits. The lecture’s policy prescriptions—though logical, coherent, and grounded in best practices—were not embedded in a structural economic model tailored to the Caribbean.

Without such a model—one that accounts for foreign exchange constraints, external price setting, small market size, and the dominance of private sector-driven activity—these strategies risk floating free of operational traction. In these economies, nothing is produced or sold unless it can be done profitably at global prices beyond local control. Moreover, without a quantitative macroeconomic framework, policymakers lack the tools to set benchmarks for growth, monitor deviations, and adjust policies in real time. The absence of such a model undermines the very technocratic ambition the lecture sought to advance.

The tragedy of Caribbean policymaking is not the absence of vision but the weakness of operationalization. The ideas Clarke presented are, for the most part, the right ones. However, implementation requires tools. It requires coordinated institutional frameworks, regionally owned economic models, and a political economy that rewards long-term investment in human and physical capital over short-term expedience.

To truly honor William Demas is not to repeat his language but to renew his method. That method was grounded in rigorous planning, regional solidarity, and structural realism. It is time to pair vision with the machinery of delivery. Dr. Clarke’s lecture should be remembered not just as a benchmark for discourse but as a call to return to the hard but necessary work of implementation—and to do so with the intellectual seriousness that Demas demanded and our future requires.

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

The Constitutional Promise Under Siege: Birthright Citizenship and the Soul of American Democracy

By Dr. Terrence Blackman, Chair of Mathematics, Medgar Evers College

Written in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (June 27, 2025)

As Chair of Mathematics at Medgar Evers College, I am trained to value precision, logic, and the immutable nature of fundamental principles. Yet today, I find myself grappling not with mathematical theorems but with a constitutional crisis that strikes at the heart of what it means to be American. Executive Order 14160’s attempt to redefine birthright citizenship represents more than a policy shift—it is an assault on the foundational architecture of our republic, one that demands examination through the lens of constitutional law, historical precedent, and moral clarity.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares with remarkable clarity that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This language emerged from the ashes of the Civil War, crafted by a nation determined to ensure that the horrors of Dred Scott—which declared that Black Americans could never be citizens—would never again corrupt our constitutional order. At Medgar Evers College, where we educate students who understand the historical weight of citizenship as a claim to full dignity and belonging, we must ask: Can we allow that promise to be reinterpreted by executive fiat? And who gets to decide that a child born on American soil is not American enough?

The constitutional promise of birthright citizenship is not merely a legal doctrine—it is a moral covenant. It declares that in America, your worth is not determined by the circumstances of your parents’ arrival, the color of your skin, or the nation of your ancestry. It is a promise that every child born in the United States inherits the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship. To abandon this principle is to leave the very idea that rights are inherent rather than inherited.

Executive Order 14160 challenges this foundational legal principle without congressional action or judicial review, raising profound questions about the separation of powers and the limits of presidential authority. As a mathematician committed to logic and rigor, I am compelled to ask: What precedent do we set when executive preference trumps constitutional clarity? We are not merely debating immigration policy—we are playing with the architecture of the republic itself. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has now become the legal battlefield upon which this constitutional crisis unfolds. However, legal ambiguity must not become a political tool used to exclude those deemed undesirable.

Should the meaning of citizenship rest on original intent, evolving jurisprudence, or presidential interpretation? As a faculty leader at a CUNY campus built on struggles for civil rights, my fears about judicial abdication have been realized with today’s Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. The mathematics of democracy requires clear rules and consistent application. When we allow those rules to be rewritten through executive decree, we undermine the very foundation upon which democratic governance rests. If a president can unilaterally redefine citizenship, what other constitutional principles become subject to the whims of executive power?

Today’s Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. represents a profound failure of judicial courage at the moment when constitutional clarity is most desperately needed. Rather than addressing whether Executive Order 14160 violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, the Court chose to rule narrowly on the scope of judicial authority itself—specifically, whether federal courts can issue universal injunctions that protect all similarly situated individuals, not just the plaintiffs in a particular case. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Barrett, the majority held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable powers granted to federal courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court granted the government’s request for a partial stay, limiting three lower court injunctions so they apply only to the named plaintiffs. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, acknowledged what the majority refused to accept. This technical ruling leaves countless children in constitutional limbo while the Court shies away from its fundamental responsibility to interpret the Constitution.

As a mathematician, I understand the appeal of technical precision over moral complexity. However, when children’s citizenship is at stake, procedural minimalism becomes a moral abdication. The Court’s refusal to address the constitutional merits means that Executive Order 14160 continues to operate against all those not explicitly protected by the now-limited injunctions. We have created a two-tier system where some U.S.-born children are protected by court order. In contrast, others remain vulnerable to denaturalization—a result that violates both equal protection and logical coherence. The majority’s focus on limiting judicial power while ignoring executive overreach reveals a troubling asymmetry in constitutional concern. Where is the same solicitude for limiting executive power when it comes to redefining citizenship by presidential decree? The Court’s selective constitutional minimalism protects governmental authority while abandoning constitutional rights—precisely the opposite of what judicial review should accomplish.

Beyond the legal and constitutional questions lies a profound moral crisis. At Medgar Evers College, our students often carry layered identities—Guyanese-American, Haitian-American, and yes, some who are undocumented yet deeply rooted in American soil. The implications for Guyana and the broader Caribbean diaspora are particularly stark. Executive Order 14160 would strip citizenship from children born to Guyanese parents who immigrated seeking economic opportunity and political stability—the same aspirations that have driven migration from Georgetown to Brooklyn for generations. Consider the mathematics of this cruelty: a child born in Queens to Guyanese parents working in healthcare, education, or service industries would suddenly find themselves stateless despite knowing no other home than New York. These families, who have contributed to American communities while maintaining deep ties to Guyana, would see their American-born children denied the very citizenship that represents the culmination of their immigrant journey. I am compelled to ask: What happens to the soul of a nation that welcomes the labor of immigrant families but withholds recognition from their children? Are we prepared to raise a generation of children without a country?

The ethical consequences of rendering a child stateless in the land of their birth extend far beyond individual tragedy. We risk creating a permanent underclass of individuals who know no other home yet are denied the fundamental dignity of belonging. These children will grow up in American schools, speak American English, and dream American dreams—yet under this executive order, they would be denied the fundamental recognition of their American identity. What kind of society are we becoming when we tell a child born in Brooklyn or Birmingham that they are not truly American because of decisions made by their parents before their birth? This is not justice—it is cruelty masquerading as policy.

The effort to redefine birthright citizenship follows a troubling racial lineage that stretches from Dred Scott to the Chinese Exclusion Act to the modern immigration crackdown. As Chair of Mathematics at an HBCU named for a civil rights martyr, I am uniquely positioned to recognize the patterns of exclusion that have repeatedly corrupted American ideals. Is this policy a principled interpretation of the law—or another chapter in the long American story of racial gatekeeping? History teaches us that every generation faces the choice between expanding the circle of inclusion or contracting it out of fear. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was justified as an economic necessity. The exclusion of Black Americans from full citizenship was defended as a constitutional interpretation. Each time, we were told that these exclusions were reasonable, necessary, and legally sound. Each time, history has proven these justifications to be moral failures disguised in legal language.

The targeting inherent in this executive order—affecting primarily children of Latino, Asian, and African immigrants—reveals the familiar arithmetic of American prejudice. When we examine who is included and who is excluded, the pattern becomes unmistakable: this is not colorblind constitutional interpretation but rather racialized gatekeeping in constitutional clothing. The impact on Caribbean nations, such as Guyana, is particularly telling. For decades, Guyanese families have built lives in American cities, contributing to healthcare systems, educational institutions, and local economies while maintaining cultural bridges between their homeland and the United States. Their children, born in American hospitals and raised in American schools, embody the successful integration that immigration policy should celebrate. Yet Executive Order 14160 would render these children stateless—too foreign for the country of their birth, too American for their parents’ homeland. This is not immigration enforcement; it is the deliberate creation of a rootless generation, cut off from the constitutional protections that should be their birthright.

If we can deny birthright citizenship based on the legal status of one’s parents, we are abandoning the idea that rights are inherent, not inherited. This is not merely a legal question—it is a national identity crisis that will define the character of American democracy for generations to come. At Medgar Evers College, we ask our students to imagine a freer, more inclusive society where mathematical precision meets moral clarity and where constitutional principles align with democratic values. We teach them that America’s greatest strength has always been its capacity for self-correction, its ability to expand rather than contract the meaning of freedom and belonging. But what happens when that capacity fails? What happens when we choose fear over hope, exclusion over inclusion, executive convenience over constitutional principle? We risk becoming a nation that has lost its way, one that betrays its founding promises out of political expedience.

Today’s Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. has made the questions raised by Executive Order 14160 even more urgent and pressing. By refusing to address the constitutional merits while limiting judicial protection to a select group of named plaintiffs, the Court has abdicated its role as the ultimate guardian of constitutional rights. The Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship now hangs in legal limbo, undefended by the very institution charged with its protection. The ruling reveals the dangerous mathematics of constitutional evasion: when the executive branch overreaches and the judicial branch retreats, democratic rights become the variable sacrificed to preserve institutional convenience. We now face a constitutional crisis where limited court orders protect some U.S.-born children. In contrast, others remain vulnerable to executive denial of their citizenship—a patchwork of protection that violates both the principle of equal justice and logical coherence.

As educators, scholars, and citizens, we can no longer rely on judicial intervention to defend constitutional principles. The Court’s technical minimalism in the face of constitutional crisis demonstrates that the protection of democratic values must come from democratic engagement itself. We must demand that Congress exercise its constitutional authority to clarify and protect birthright citizenship. We must insist that state and local officials refuse to cooperate with unconstitutional denaturalization efforts. We must organize, educate, and mobilize to defend the constitutional promise that the Supreme Court has chosen to ignore.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship represents one of America’s highest aspirations—the idea that in this nation, every child born to a parent or parents with citizenship status inherits the full rights and responsibilities of democratic citizenship. Today’s Supreme Court ruling makes clear that we can no longer depend on judicial protection of that promise. The constitutional question remains unresolved, leaving Executive Order 14160 to operate against all those not explicitly protected by now-limited court injunctions.

As I tell my mathematics students, some principles are non-negotiable—not because they are politically convenient, but because they are logically and morally essential. The constitutional promise of birthright citizenship is one such principle. Today’s judicial evasion makes it even more urgent for all Americans—regardless of party, politics, or personal preference—to stand in defense of that promise through democratic action, congressional intervention, and organized resistance to unconstitutional executive overreach.

The mathematics of democracy is clear: when we diminish citizenship for some, we diminish it for all. When we allow constitutional principles to be rewritten by executive decree while courts retreat into procedural minimalism, we risk losing the very foundation of democratic governance. Today’s ruling has made the choice before us even starker—it is not merely about immigration policy but about whether we will actively defend the constitutional democracy that the Court has chosen to abandon. The constitutional crisis is no longer theoretical—it is immediate, urgent, and unresolved. The time for action is now.

Dr. Terrence Blackman is Chair of Mathematics at Medgar Evers College, City University of New York. He writes and speaks frequently on issues of education, civil rights, and constitutional democracy.

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

Editorial | Guyana Business Journal

June 21, 2025

APNU’s Youth Empowerment Agenda: Promise, Premise, and Practicality

Guyana Business Journal, June 2025

In its June 20th statement, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) unveiled a comprehensive vision to position Guyana’s youth at the center of national development. The plan spans skills training, entrepreneurship, mining, housing, and education—all anchored by a proposed Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES). The underlying message is clear: young Guyanese are not problems to be managed, but assets to be developed. This reframing is both timely and necessary.

The flagship YES programme promises a $400,000 tax-free income threshold for working youth, monthly cash transfers, access to sustainable agriculture programs, and structured contractor training. This integration of direct economic support with capacity building represents a notable departure from traditional welfare approaches. Rather than offering assistance alone, APNU signals a commitment to structured empowerment that builds long-term economic participation. The National Youth Investment Fund (NYIF) complements this approach by pairing grants and low-interest loans with financial literacy training and support for small business development. In a region where entrepreneurial infrastructure often lags behind ambition, such comprehensive backing could prove transformative.

Beyond immediate economic support, APNU’s proposal for stock exchange education and modernization addresses a significant gap in Guyana’s financial landscape. By familiarizing young people with investment tools and wealth-generation strategies, the party aims to tap into an underutilized equity market. If executed with proper scale and integrity, this initiative could democratize access to financial markets and create pathways to building generational wealth.

More contentious is the youth mining strategy, which features special permits and expedited approvals that present both promise and peril. While mining can generate immediate income, the environmental and regulatory implications demand careful consideration. Short-term economic gains often come at the expense of long-term costs for communities and ecosystems. Success will depend on robust environmental safeguards and sustainable governance frameworks that the proposal does not yet fully articulate.

Perhaps most ambitious is the proposed $50,000 monthly stipend for students in tertiary, technical, and vocational programs. While the intention merits praise, the financial sustainability raises serious questions that extend to other costly commitments. Similarly, rent-to-own housing and rent subsidies for young people, although aligned with homeownership goals, will require sophisticated financial planning and seamless coordination between the public and private sectors. Additional proposals—scholarships to local and international institutions, a National Youth Leadership Training Programme, and medical insurance for national athletes—demonstrate genuine attention to youth needs across education, leadership development, and sports, but add to the overall fiscal burden.

APNU grounds these economic proposals in a broader commitment to combat corruption and redirect oil revenues to the benefit of citizens. The promise to put “oil money in people’s pockets” will resonate with Guyanese who have yet to experience tangible benefits from the country’s petroleum boom. This messaging transforms the youth agenda into part of a larger narrative about fiscal justice and institutional reform, lending political weight to otherwise technocratic proposals.

Yet despite its scope and ambition, the platform leaves fundamental questions unanswered. How will these extensive initiatives be funded sustainably? What mechanisms will ensure transparency and prevent the very corruption APNU promises to eliminate? Can these programs survive political transitions and maintain effectiveness beyond electoral cycles? These uncertainties cast shadows over even the most well-designed components of the agenda.

APNU’s youth agenda represents a comprehensive effort to address legitimate concerns about employment, housing, education, and economic fairness through concrete policy solutions. The platform’s strength lies in its comprehensive approach and recognition of youth as economic drivers rather than dependents. The ultimate test, however, will be execution. Matching policy aspiration with technocratic precision, administrative integrity, and financial discipline remains the central challenge. If APNU can navigate these implementation hurdles, the impact could reshape Guyana’s development trajectory. If not, even the most well-intentioned proposals risk becoming another example of political promise exceeding practical capacity. The stakes are high for Guyana’s youth, its democratic institutions, and its economic future.

—End—

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