Civil society will never have a voice unless we can separate Govt from State

Feb 18, 2018 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

The present saga unfolding about the PSA signed between Exxon and the Government of Guyana sends a clear message to Guyanese. The Government without any consultation with the masses or the hired advisor, Dr Jan Mangal, gave up more concessions and accepted less royalty than any other Country where ExxonMobil found oil.
The PSA revealed that the Govt signed up to repaying from our
resource (oil); Exxon’s cost (unaudited by us) of US$461million, incurred from since Exxon’s quest
for oil in Guyana. It granted duty free concession on everything imported, stops the natural resource
minister from visiting the site of production without notifying Exxon seven days in advance, holds the
Govt liable for litigation costs for any oil spill or any other grievances that may arise, offers royalty of
2% while the President’s advisor on petroleum tells the Nation that normal royalties paid around the
world is 10 to 20% and more.
The nation is left to wonder if there was any negotiation, or a gun was held to the head of the
Minister to sign the PSA that Guyana received. An Exxon executive, shortly before the PSA was
revealed in its entirety said that Guyana got a good deal, considering that we are a “frontier” nation in
oil and gas. The American midwest was considered a Frontier too! Memories of guns and roses abound
from there. Could the signing of such lopsided PSA be connected to the proverbial “twenty pieces of
silver” at work? While the call to renegotiate the flawed PSA continues to reverberate in the media.
Trotman said“I am not presently advised that government has any intention revisiting that agreement.”
That statement nullifies the gun to head theory.
Whether agitations from the masses or the international community will be successful in pressuring
the Govt to renegotiate the contract is abstract thinking. As it is, the resource curse seems destined for
Guyana. Omai was 5%. Exxon is 2%. We are on a downward trajectory in royalty on resources.
A few days ago Dr Jan Mangal, presidential advisor on petroleum said that the people should not let
politicians decide all by themselves how the oil industry is managed. Echoing similar sentiment was
Canadian lawyer Alison Redford at the GIPEX forum saying, “ Be it the Sovereign Wealth Fund
(SWF) or mitigating environmental problems, these are all issues where dialogue must be something
where civil society must have a voice.” Civil society has not been afforded a voice in matters of
national interest throughout successive regimes since independence. All the Governments since independence had superimposed themselves on the State in such a perplexingly intertwining manner that the Govt and State appeared as one-the Govt is the State, the State is the Govt. Examples of what I
am talking about is abundant.
(1) NIS is a state institution. The govt of the Day (PPP/C) felt it was their property so with out any
consultation or consensus with civic society they invested NIS monies in the Berbice Bridge. Now NIS
is struggling to maintain its matured contributors.
(2) Enter APNU/AFC. Guysuco is a state own corporation making a loss yearly. The Govt felt it was
within their ambit to close several estates with out consensus or consultation with civil society-contrary
to what they had promised. Unfazed by the hardships they are creating for these communities.
(3) The present draft policy states that,” the petroleum resources of Guyana belongs to all its citizens,
and represents an asset of intrinsic value which once remove, diminishes the wealth of the nation.” This
is pellucidly simple language. Why should a Government elected by the people refuse to seek
consensus or consultation with the legal owners of a resource (petroleum) before signing a PSA with a
company to extract that resource? No Govt can effectively fulfill its mandate to serve its people
without consultation with civic society on matters of dire importance to its people. How about article
13 of the constitution of Guyana-” The principal objective of the system of state is to establish an
inclusionary democracy by providing opportunities for the participation of the citizens,and their
organizations in the management and decision-making processes of the state, with particular emphasis
on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well being.”Who is upholding and
protecting the constitution or system of state? Certainly not the one who swore to do so in his
inauguration in 2015! For the next 40 years nothing will affect our “well being” positively or
negatively more than the extraction of our petroleum resources-yet we were not consulted about the
PSA. It’s criminal! It needs to be redressed. How do we do that? Will a new party make any difference?
I think not. We need Constitutional Reform – a chance to change the way our MP’s are elected. We
need to go back to a constituency basis where we can make our MP’s free men and women responsive
to the people and the common good of the Country, not slaves to a political party as it is now. The MP’s
will in turn be able to hold the Government responsible- seperating state from Government. Private
citizens should be allowed to run for the presidency and Member of parliament if any so desire. The
ballots for MP’s election must not have any party’s name or logo even though candidates may be
politically affiliated- the primary objective is to get the people’s representative, not the party’s
representative in parliament. A minister of Govt is part of a political administration and may address
parliament, seeking approval for funds or otherwise but should not be a member of parliament, unless
elected in a constituency. Our present parliament is a farce- 360 degrees away from representing the
people because their greatest allegiance is to their party,not to the people. I know its a hard cycle to
break. In any election the “die hards” will vote PPP or APNU/AFC as soon as they see the initials or
logo of their favourite party. We need to break the cycle of paramountcy of the parties and replace it
with paramountcy of the people. Naturally the politicians on both side of the divide will never support
this degree of reform. They all crave power under the present system.
Who wants it? Who will bell the cat? The British High commissioner said CR will only happen if the
people wants it. Two generations has been lost because the people remain stuck in a mode where they
looked up to the politicians for leadership since the fight against the colonial masters. That mode has
been passed on like a baton in a relay race and this generation is unable to comprehend that the
betrayal continues. Some will gravitate to any new party in search of solace- the majority will remain
supporters of the two evil (PPP and APNU/AFC) that exists-the independent thinkers will find their
numbers too small to make a difference-Guyana will remain in checkmate.
Rudolph Singh

---

---