I AM convinced in the deep, inaccessible reaches of my academic mind and political soul that if the Government of Guyana (GoG) orders ExxonMobil to the table for contract renegotiation, days after publication of the configurations and dimensions of the confabulation, the first set of people to criticise the emanations, articulations, adumbrations and requests of the government would be people who constitute the anti-oil lobby.

I write here without an infinitesimal shred of doubt that the first chastisement of the government’s approach will come from an editorial from the Stabroek News (SN). They will be followed by newspaper letters from the usual suspects, Red Thread, and the oil and governance network.

There will be press releases from the Guyana Human Rights Association, Guyana-Transparency Institute. There will be columns from Mr. Christopher Ram and Dr. Alissa Trotz writing from “In The Diaspora,” among others.
Here is a list of criticisms as the dialogue between EXXON and GoG is intensified. 1- The country is being embarrassed at the way the GoG is negotiating. 2- The GoG has to be careful Guyana is not ostracised by the international community by its style and demands. 3. This is not the way to proceed in international negotiations, the GoG is faltering.

4- The position of the GoG is somewhat untenable and maybe it should seek expertise from CARICOM. 5 – Our traditional multilateral donor agencies are monitoring the talks and the GoG has to be careful it doesn’t damage relation with same. 6 – The GoG needs to change course in its approach because we are at a point where ExxonMobil may walk. 7- Guyana wanted renegotiation of the contract but this is not the way to do it. 8 – The GoG seems helpless to understand the modalities of international laws relating to global investment contracts and a disaster may fall on Guyana.

I repeat – those eight predictions I have outlined above will inevitably be part of the anti-oil lobby. Why is that so? We will provide the answer but the main reason for writing this column is the SN’s reaction to the removal of Marxism-Leninism by the PPP in its constitution.
I read the editorial on the subject and thought there and then that there is a mindset in this country whose putridity may not obtain elsewhere.

Since its formation in 1986, SN has pronounced countless times on the irrelevance of Marxism-Leninism in the PPP’s constitution. I mean, literally countless times. You read, Clem Seecharan’s recent book, “Cheddi Jagan and the Cold War, 1964-1992,” and you see his references to the SN’s denunciation of Jagan’s embrace of Marxism-Leninism.

So finally, SN got its wish on Sunday, April 5, 2024 when at its congress, the PPP delegates voted to removes the article of Marxism-Leninism from its constitution.
Anyone who followed politics in this land the past 40 years anticipated an editorial from SN giving approval for the removal and an analysis on why it should have been done a long time ago.

But no! SN lived up to its insane hatred for the PPP. As soon as I read the editorial, immediately I got the title for this column.
Here is what SN wrote in its editorial of Saturday, May 11, 2024: “Defenestration of its founding ideology on Sunday in one fell swoop seemed anti-climatic, aseptic and dictated. One would have thought that such weighty change would have benefitted from deeper exchanges akin to the national consultations on reform of the Guyana Constitution that the majority PPP/C government has embarked on.

“Rather interestingly, the proposal for the expungement of the ‘isms’ came from the Leonora Party Group. This is the part of the West Demerara that President Ali calls home and would perforce have carried his weight at the point of debate… the fact is the PPP of the Jagans – and the rapidly diminishing number of Jaganites – would not have easily brooked such fundamental changes to the constitution.”

They say the words we use tell us about the Freudian underpinnings that lie in our mind. SN chose the harsh word, “defenestration” rather than a more value-free noun like “removal.” But from reading the quote above, there are no welcoming words from SN for the delegation which the passage of time has rendered necessary.

SN, since 1968, wanted those words deleted. The PPP eventually did so, and an analysis should have been done showing where the PPP eventually did the right thing. I will now give the answer I mentioned above as to why the anti-oil lobby would be the first to criticise the government for its position if Guyana renegotiates the oil contract. The underlying, frenetic motive is anti-PPP hatred. This explains why SN cannot welcome the removal of the words from the PPP’s constitution.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.