By Marlon Bristol

THE country seems to be thinking in a dichotomous order. For instance, when talking about oil, the discussion seems to be a doom-or-gloom extreme. The other dichotomy includes Green Economy or oil and gas, which one will engulf the country’s focus! And on the development side, we quibble about ‘a country for old men’, the old or young dichotomy, disregarding the correlation between age and experience. Simply put, this dichotomous thinking has led to speculation about whether experienced older persons are capable of taking Guyana into the future, and whether a Green State can be achieved, given much attention to oil and gas.

The dichotomous disaggregation debate to orient policy and interventions to treat particular needs are welcome. But, the doom-or-gloom scenarios, in particular ‘OR’, is not a coordinating conjunction in our development language and psyche – it should not be! There is an inextricable nexus and mutual need for experience and youth, while oil and gas is but a sector, a component of the wider national economy where the agenda is to develop Guyana as a Green State, based on a Sustainable Development platform. Hence, our attention is, and should be focused on sustainability and people.
Currently, oil seems to be high on the agenda of Guyanese. Permeating the airwaves and completely attracting the attention of most public discourses. So much so that every analysis for debate has to consider oil-and-gas developments, otherwise be deemed irrelevant. From the contract, to the capacity of domiciled Guyanese, local content and investments, politics, economics, labour, and social development. All collide in public spaces, with managers and the managed fighting to transcend the resource curse. Even the elements of ‘race’, and the ‘race’ for command over the resources are raising its head, and unapologetically so.

Young and old are angst by varying views and approaches about the future development of Guyana. This has aggravated the debate about the selection of experience to dispassionately guide the enabling environment that gives chances/offer opportunities to the poor and powerless when benefits accrue from the oil and gas sector. As such, a common assertion in public opinion is the rise of Ageism – prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of age. But really, it is more an issue of intergenerational mobility, and thus all hands are needed on deck.

In 2014, Chetty and others indicated that ‘intergenerational mobility seeks to measure the degree to which a child’s social and economic opportunities depend upon his or her parents’ income or social status’. This is the debate about family-based intergenerational wealth for the rich and intergenerational poverty that beset the poor. However, because opportunities are difficult to measure, as Chetty et al 2014 noted, intergenerational mobility is usually measured in empirical studies by a child’s, grown-up income (or occupation) depending upon that of his or her parents. On the ground, we can all identify with this. In the case of Guyana, and by virtue of public sentiments, the society is clamouring to see and measure their chances of getting ahead in the future by observation of people-centred development, benchmarked by demonstration. It is by this very token, a balanced and keen focus should remain on people (young and old) and sustainability – Sustainable Green development and how all its facets materialize. It is for this very reason too that the focus on the Green State should be the overarching platform within which oil and gas is debated. In essence, the focus again is sustainability and people.

Sustainable development, as enshrined in the SDGs, are not merely about renewable energy as the skewedness of the oil-and-gas debate seems to be suggesting, but more broadly about the nexus of economics, environment, social and other responsibilities to current and future generations. Therefore, maintaining the focus on the Green Economy Development is exactly where the oil-and-gas debate should be affixed and summarised with context, and not the other way around. In this setting of sustainable development, the idea is to appreciate that the chances of a youth, are not simply dependent on the outcomes of the past, but that of a functioning system and institutional arrangements that improve their prospects for the future.

And, those with the experience are expected to deliver this type of framework in the present. His Excellency has assured that sustainability and people are enshrined in the pillars of Green State Development, the establishment of a Sovereign Wealth Fund, and the likes of being a signatory to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Of course, this is further augured by the intention of directing more resources for infrastructural development, education, health, and social welfare issues.
We must accept– and have probably done so by now– at minimum, that they are quite a number of issues to be considered as welfare-enhancing as we go forward with proceeds from oil and gas. For those contemplating ‘money in their hands’, proposals and experiences from around the world exist. For example, Finland explored an unconditional basic income for the unemployed (25 to 58 years of age). The idea was to reduce poverty levels, so the unemployed received such benefits, even if they had part-time work. Closer to home in countries without oil, for example Antigua and Barbuda, a welfare- enhancing measure was the abolition of Personal Income Tax. There are many more experiences to go around on this matter. Notwithstanding, discussions on welfare improvements coming from resources gained from oil seem absent for the most part on what potentially we see as necessary for our 60 and over population. I was reminded of this not so long ago,our 60+ population are wondering what’s in it for them, another angle of ageism.

Recently, I had the opportunity to listen on separate occasions to a male and female senior. On the one hand, the female complained that the dependant’s relative fund gives her G$570.00 monthly; what can that do, she asked? On the other hand, the male who is employed as a security guard proceeded to ask me what is the ‘government’ doing for wages in the ‘private sector.’ He expected me to respond on how government can help seniors working in the private sector. While we are all debating contract, local content etc., their concerns are more about welfare enhancement. To the 60+ generation not seeing such an issue feature as part of the debate in public, suggests another form of Ageism. But here again, the very fabric as to why Sustainable Development as reflected through Green Economy measures becomes essential for all, and is imminent. Anyway, the conversations dovetailed right back to oil and gas and what was in it for senior citizens.
In the end, as it should be now in the beginning, the conversation should remain grounded in our sustainable approach to development and utility of the oil-and-gas sector taking us there. The development agenda remains to be that of a Green State premised on sustainable development practices. It was and is never a Green State and/or oil and gas, nor an issue of old and young, but of people. To continue on the former is to have oil and gas crowd out discussions on the attainment of a Green State, and by extension, a sidelining of our sustainable development agenda. Through the very concept of sustainability intergenerational mobility is guaranteed in a way that the future looks bright for everyone, all our people – young and old.