Dear Editor,
I HAVE a good friend who works as a public servant. She is married and has one child. She is a member of the Joint Services, but finds it challenging to support her family on a salary which pales in commensuration with the position she holds. She told me recently that she is confused by the debate over oil revenues and how it will impact her and her family’s livelihood. She isn’t a usual pessimist, but she doesn’t seem very excited, either about the prospect of benefitting significantly from recent oil discoveries. I am afraid that more than 50 per cent of the Guyanese population are in similar semi-confused states of mind as my friend.

I am also suspicious that this is where some politicians are able to bamboozle the populace.

Ignorance and poverty are constrictors of ordinary citizens’ development. We know that something is happening, but are often unsure of what it is or how it will impact us. Most are often too busy, trying to put food on their tables or otherwise inhibited. They may avoid, or are incapable of, dialogue because of their limited understanding of important matters. This is compounded by the fear of exposing obvious ignorance. Ignorance is not bad when it is the catalyst that propels one to pursue learning and the acquisition of knowledge. Knowledge is power. Intrinsically, some persons capitalise on the ignorance of others and have no obvious interest in delivering them by improving their knowledge through education.

My interest in Guyana’s new found wealth has been heightened by current affairs and activities relevant to petroleum, because this country will soon be producing that highly valued mineral. Given the projected revenue gains, every Guyanese citizen who experienced Guyana’s evolution and post-independence economic struggles should feel a strong entitlement to benefit from the inevitable yields. The distribution of oil revenues has now become a major focal point, with growing anxiety over its efficacy.

Having an equitable distribution of oil wealth should be a major consideration by any sincere and caring government. Guyana’s is not exempt. Inequity in some countries has created domestic instability with debilitating effects. In other countries, brutal civil wars have been the consequence of perceived inequity and unfairness.

Locally renowned and internationally respected economist Professor Clive Thomas’ recent proposition is one that seeks to create equitable distribution of the anticipated oil revenues. Based on Guyana’s small population size, Professor Thomas posited that direct, annual cash payouts of US$5,000 per family would be a practical and meaningful poverty alleviation mechanism. Once properly implemented, life for individual Guyanese should improve considerably, unless they deliberately impoverish themselves.

Subsequent concerns have been raised that significant annual cash payouts may cause inflationary effects or spending indiscipline. Given these probabilities, government can undertake to provide guidance and education on how citizens could prioritize spending, and also implement macro-economic measures to manage inflation.

Professor Thomas’ proposition has not escaped some resistance and critique. Even some of his party’s coalition partners seem to believe that the idea is over our heads. Others have sought to completely dismiss the proposition as fantasizing and politicking. Signals from the Alliance For Change (AFC) in support of Professor Thomas’ proposition is a good one. Such support adds greater value to this indigenous idea. The AFC has consistently declared and positioned itself as the fulcrum for balancing political power in Guyana.

Nevertheless, Professor Thomas’ proposition is not abstract if one considers the Alaskan success. The state of Alaska offers a kind of Global Resource Dividend (GRD) to its citizens on an annual basis. It is similar to the thesis of Philosopher Thomas Pogge, who posited that such dividends can help to negate economic inequality. The Alaska Permanent Fund has been providing dividends of US$300 – $2,000 annually for citizens. In 2016, each Alaskan received $1,022 for his or her share in that State’s mineral wealth.

In Guyana, in spite of our huge vast mineral wealth and massive extractions of Gold, Timber, Manganese and other high yielding minerals, the masses have seldom enjoyed, even fractional, benefits derived from those resources. Revenues derived from mineral resources invariably go directly from extracting companies to the government coffers, never passing through the hands of the citizens whose patrimony they are. Although national budgets are presented, the obscurity of their construction invariably excludes citizens from comprehensibly scrutinizing actual revenues, expenditures and taxes.

A GRD approach would require greater accountability of successive governments. It is felt that there is need for an urgent, wider discussion on how we could use our oil revenues for collective and individual benefits. This would obviously require proper structuring, and inclusiveness of the various sectors, civil society and communities.

We cannot just leave it up to politicians and the usual triad of celebrated foreign functionaries to set the pace for the people of this country. They may be familiar, but do not experience the toughness of life for the majority of working-class people. If individual cash payments are good for Alaska, then it can be good for this country too. Here is a chance for those who govern to really make the small man a real man in Guyana!

Regards
Orette Cutting