Dear Editor,
THE stability, security, and well-being of any population rely on prioritising national interest, or the common good, over individual or business gains. That is a fundamental principle of politics and human rights.
By refusing to sever ties with his firm’s employer, ExxonMobil, AFC Leader Mr Nigel Hughes is effectively setting the stage for the creation of an Iron Triangle, which threatens this country’s national interest.
Editor, for the benefit of those who may not know, an Iron Triangle refers to the mutually beneficial relationship between political/government agencies, legislators, and interest groups, in which each component supports the others to achieve specific policy goals.
Though not illegal, iron triangles generally undermine national interest by promoting and enacting policies that serve the narrow objectives of interest groups, often at the expense of the broader public good and democratic accountability.
Tobacco companies, for example, spend millions of dollars lobbying in the US every year in an attempt to weaken, delay, or kill life-saving public health policies.
The Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) reported this year that in 2023 the tobacco industry in the US had 262 lobbyists registered at the federal level, 75.57 per cent of whom were former government employees likely to have increased access to highly influential people in the legislature and federal agencies, to the detriment of public health.
Imagine the uproar if, in 2017, when Guyana’s Tobacco Control Bill was being piloted by the then government, an employee of the Demerara Tobacco Company was either the leader of an opposition party represented in the National Assembly, or a sitting legislator. Just imagine.
In the early 2000s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the US moved to prevent states from setting their own fuel-economy standards, prompting a suit by California and several other states. To avoid contradicting then-president George Bush’s policy goals, the EPA also revised internal positions on Global Warming.
In both cases, the EPA clearly worked against its mandate which is the protection of the natural environment to the benefit of the American people. As a government agency, the EPA depends on the US legislature and the US President for patronage and funding, which leads it to act in the interests of those who, in turn, patronise the political class.
Mr Hughes would do well to know that the ‘Iron’ aspect of the triangle is that its largely impervious to outside influence; so long as donors can keep politicians in office, those politicians will support donor-friendly policies, which in turn enable the donor class to thrive within a friendly regulatory environment.
Ironically, it was Mr Hughes’ party that just a few months ago accused Guyana’s EPA of being more interested in protecting the oil company it was supposed to be regulating, than the interest of the Guyanese people, when the EPA appealed Justice Sandil Kissoon’s ruling on oil-spill insurance obligations.
Editor, as Guyana moves to strengthen its legal and regulatory framework for its rapidly expanding oil and gas sector, these efforts must be insulated from the influence of oil companies which have deep pockets and extensive reach.
The creation of an Iron Triangle involving the country’s biggest investor can catastrophically harm our societal well-being and create a cycle of influence and dependency that undermines transparency, democratic accountability and good governance.
Surely, the Guyana Human Rights Association, Transparency Institute Guyana Inc and other “civil society” groups cannot remain silent on this.
Yours faithfully,
Ravin Singh