PULL QUOTE: ‘APNU did not support Amaila in Parliament, because it claimed that there was no Amaila Bill, among other things, for which it castigated the GoG. APNU must know that Parliament is a symbol and bedrock of the negotiated Act, and so, to casually dismiss Amaila in Parliament, given its hugeness for Guyana’s development, was an abdication of its role as parliamentarians’

I HAVE no doubt that the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project (Amaila) debacle signals the shortcomings of Guyana’s politics. The hugeness of this project’s potential for upgrading Guyana’s future demanded total political subscription to compromising tendencies, and not to absolute dislodgement and ultimate orchestrated eviction of the project developer Sithe Global. Let us say for the moment that the Government of Guyana (GoG) was in the wrong for not allegedly making full disclosure on Amaila. On the other side of the political fence, the major opposition party A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) behaved as cheerleaders for the fall of Amaila.
Within a one-year period, Sithe Global twice requested parliamentary political consensus on Amaila as a precondition to execute the project. At that time, APNU should have become emboldened and do what was necessary and sufficient to reach political consensus, even though it had a negative perception of GoG on the matter. Also, at the time of Sithe Global’s first request for parliamentary consensus, the burden was on APNU to assure Sithe Global about its own abiding interest to secure hydropower for Guyana, as Sithe Global already had such assurances from GoG. APNU’s assertiveness for parliamentary consensus then should have been pursued, notwithstanding its misgivings on the project. In doing so, APNU would have provided itself with some leverage to input the Amaila process.
APNU did not support Amaila in Parliament because it claimed that there was no Amaila Bill, among other things, for which it castigated the GoG. APNU must know that Parliament is a symbol and bedrock of the negotiated act, and so to casually dismiss Amaila in Parliament, given its hugeness for Guyana’s development, was an abdication of its role as parliamentarians.
It would appear that in its frenzy to execute the death wish for Amaila in Parliament, APNU, in that instance, failed to recognize that it controls various forms of power in Parliament which could have provided some leverage for parliamentary negotiation. Instead, APNU flailed away at the windmills of parliamentary procedures at the GoG for not having an Amaila bill in Parliament.
Indeed, the egregious cost-conscious, number-crunching pharaohs outside of Parliament also functioned as cheerleaders to guarantee the fall of Amaila. The cost-conscious cheerleaders against Amaila used a micro-economic logic based largely on rationalism where they considered costs and benefits to decide on the course of action. Nonetheless, they should present the assumptions used to calculate their estimates to determine whether those assumptions are reasonable.
In a previous piece making a case that extends beyond costs and benefits and creating a space for compromise, I wrote thusly: “And so, for the benefit of the Amaila watchers, critics of Amaila may wish to outline the assumptions underlying the financial parameters they used to derive their conclusions, and to review whether such assumptions have been tried and tested for reasonableness within the context of the local environment and social factors.
The World Commission of Dams (WCD) report in 2000 argued for people to see beyond the constricted economic decision making, and to also include environmental and social factors when making decisions. Indeed, this approach does not suggest that the hydro should be constructed at any cost. But integrated decision making to include economic, social and environmental costs has to be a precondition for making definitive conclusions on whether or not Amaila is feasible. The critics’ conclusions used to victimize Amaila seem to be largely in the economics and financial domains, perhaps more financial than economic, and, therefore, contrary to the WCD report.”
There are some people including politicians who behave in the main rationally in terms of costs and benefits, producing preferences for the individual; critics of Amaila may fit this category. But there are others including politicians who behave in terms of reasons (appropriateness, trading arguments, practical common sense (Bellamy, Kornprobst, Reh, 2012)) embedded in their identity; advocates of Amaila may fit this category.
However, considerations and agreement on Amaila ‘s worth have to go beyond costs and benefits and preferences for the individual; in addition, considerations and agreement on Amaila’s worth also will not be feasible if based only on motives or reasons (appropriateness, trading arguments, and practical common sense) entrenched in the person’s identity. So generally, there are two opposing sides to Amaila. Real negotiations recognizing both sides’ positions could have been the way forward to reach a compromise.
In this situation, politics is the art of compromise, necessary to bring the two parties together toward reaching some agreement. But the cost/benefit preferences approach alone will not make compromises happen; identity alone will not make compromises happen; compromises are to do with preferences and identity plus the many other ways in which they are connected (Bellamy, Kornprobst, Reh, 2012). Parliament as the forum for negotiation could have been the authority to make this happen.
And I am hopeful that the Amaila debacle which occurred largely because of an excessive focus on costs and benefits, among other factors, would now become a teachable moment as the country continues on its path toward hydropower development.