Guyana Politics: I Stand with the Poor: A New Coalition Government must uplift them – Dr. David Hinds


This compartmentalisation has worked against a holistic discourse which in turn inhibits an overarching vision. It occurs both at the level of those who seek to influence government and those who actually govern. It is not that I am against single-issue advocacy, but what is lacking is the linkages between and among those issues—a relationship between the tree and the forest.           

One would have to go way back to the early post-independence period to find broad-based political polemics on the central challenges facing the society–what was then referred to as the concourse of ideas. One is tempted to ask—“Where have all the flowers gone?”

It seems as if the brighter we have gotten, the less incisive our analysis of our society has become. This is part of what I was driving at in my column last week when I drew attention to the delinking of economic theory and theorization from the plight of the poor and the powerless in society.

I have been following the discourses on the oil contracts and more recently the local content policy recommendations. The critiques are for the most part very sound. I myself have from time to time offered some limited critique of the contracts from the perspective of the vulnerability of small countries going into big negotiations in a high-stake global industry. Sadly, this perspective has been downplayed by the critics who seem eager to drive home the incompetence or corruptibility of those who signed the contracts.

But what I find lacking in the critiques is their isolation from the larger meaning of the imminent oil and gas economy for a small post-plantation society whose history has been mostly one of bondage. The overt and covert absence of that history from the discourses has led to an almost alien discussion among bright people.

At the risk of angering some of my friends involved in that discussion, I am arguing that unless that discourse can be broadened and further contextualised, it would in the end mean very little to the ordinary people of Guyana.

Yes, the contracts are flawed—they gave away a lot to the foreign companies. They reek of poor decision-making by those representing the government and the people. So, what next? The world moves on and the oil will begin to pump next year. How do we link advocacy for better contracts to distribution of the coming oil revenues, however depleted?

Is it that we are saying that discussion about the distribution of the coming wealth is useless because the contracts are flawed? In other words, I ask how do the bad contracts affect or inform the distribution of the resources, beyond the fact that more would have been coming to Guyana if the contracts were better?

If you are poor, as most Guyanese are, it is the distribution that you are ultimately interested in. I am very sure that poor people hear the criticisms of the contracts and are grateful for the knowledge and oversight of government. But what about an equal oversight of the “little” that is coming? Aren’t we equally concerned about who gets what and how?

I am asking if it’s not time to include in our critique a direct witnessing for the poor. The same questions apply to the advocates of Local Content. The more local content the better for Guyanese. But better for which group of Guyanese—the poor? How are poor Guyanese going to benefit directly and semi-directly from the Local Content policy proposal by both government and business advocates?

The critics of the oil contracts and the Local Content Policy have avoided getting into a discussion about the poor. Yet the logic of the post-plantation society has to be ultimately about improving the condition of the poor—about closing the gap between those who have plenty and those who have little or nothing.

When Clive Thomas and the WPA propose direct cash transfers to the poor, it comes from that perspective. But the critics say, no to cash transfers. They instead argue for spending on social services. Because they don’t center the poor in their analysis, the critics can’t see how both enhanced social services and cash transfers would lift the poor.

At the personal level, I have decided to support the re-election of the Coalition government. The party to which I belong, the WPA, has decided to remain in the Coalition. Neither decision was straightforward. The WPA had complained of deliberate marginalization from decision-making within APNU and the larger APNU+AFC government. I had been, independent of the WPA, one of the most vocal critics of both the government’s public performance and the management of intra-coalition relations. Our support therefore is not slavish; it is conditional.

I stand with the poor. The rich can defend themselves. Governments more often than not cater to them. Parties pay lip service to the poor, but they don’t turn that rhetoric into policy. That’s why the poor have remained powerless to change their condition. One condition on which I support the Coalition is that it must center the poor in its vision and praxis for a Post-Oil Guyana.

For me, development is a multifaceted undertaking, but its central focus must always be the poor and powerless. Progress in a post-plantation society must ultimately be measured by the extent of the movement of the poor from poverty and dependency to sustained prosperity. In other words, how has the country treated with the social inequalities that are so blatant in the society? The Oil and Gas economy must work for the poor if it will make a big difference for Guyana.
The poor want quality education opportunities and outcomes. That must mean education apartheid must go. That must mean the advantages for the rich in the education process must go. That must mean more Bishops’ and Queen’s College across the country. That must mean better school buildings with classrooms, better trained teachers with better pay, better nutrition for the children, more incentives to go to school and more incentives for parents to participate in the education of their children. The poor want better health care, but they also want better nutrition. They want better roads in their communities, but they also want all-weather roads to bring their crops from the farmlands.

But above all, the poor want direct access to more money in their hands. That means they want jobs that pay a livable wage. That means they want to own their own small and medium size businesses that can guarantee a livable income. They don’t want government handouts; they want government policies that put money in their hands. This is the overriding issue in the coming elections.

I cannot stop race voting. But I urge those whose views on government and society coincide with mine or who support my political outlook and that of the WPA to demand policies in exchange for your vote, and be prepared to disturb your government if it does not follow through on promised policy.

The days for cuddling a government because we vote it into office are over. If you vote for a government, you are the best oversight, and you must exercise it. So, we are not only mobilizing people to vote for the Coalition, but we are mobilizing them for what Walter Rodney called Self-Activity for Self-Emancipation.

The WPA remains in the Coalition not out of expediency, but because we believe that a coalition government is a qualitatively better option than a one-party majority or minority government. At the end of the day it is not just about who governs, but about what is the best path to a better Guyana that guarantees security to all its citizens, especially the poor.


(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)
More of Dr. Hinds’ writings and commentaries can be found on his YouTube Channel Hinds’ Sight: Dr. David Hinds’ Guyana-Caribbean Politics and on his website Send comments to

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Trevor  On September 17, 2019 at 9:15 am

    Dr. Hinds, many of us don’t own real estate like the wealthy few in GT. They have benefited from the obscene rise in their property values because they were rich enough to buy property in the first place.

    Furthermore, there are rumours that our communities South, West Ruimveldt, Lodge and Sophia will be taken away from us, the poor, so that the foreigners, and by foreigners, I mean “investors” from USA, Canada, EU and Asia buying up the real estate to speculate and profit.

    How will this happen? Someone I know told me to secure land deeds for the properties because the armed jackboots will treat us like the Lamaha squatters when they were murdered for the Chinese “investors” to build six story building.

    The winners here are those who own land in GT, and who know how to use the monopoly of violence from the police force to seize land.

    The same Chinese or Indian “investor” who sent armed thugs to murder squatters to build six story building is now making millions of dollars renting it to oil companies or selling it for higher profits.

    Chinese “investors” are paying and bribing government workers to forge land deeds along the ECD corridor because ocean front property is scarce due to the demand from speculators.

    House prices have increased, and foreigners are charging over G$100,000 a month to rent an ‘apartment’ in a house situated in a housing scheme as far as L.B.I.

Leave a Reply to Trevor Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: