Dear Editor,
With the conclusion of the 2025 general election campaign, I feel compelled to voice my deep disappointment in the process, particularly in three critical areas that speak to transparency, public empowerment, and democratic integrity.
The campaign was notably devoid of nationally televised debates—an omission that undermines democratic accountability. In societies experiencing transformative economic shifts, such as Guyana—with its economy projected to grow by approximately 44% in 2024, up from just US$4.8 billion in 2018—voters deserve direct engagement with those seeking to lead in navigating this complex landscape. Debates are not mere tradition; they are essential forums for grappling with issues of monumental consequence, including how oil revenues are allocated, used, and safeguarded for the future.
No candidate was required to declare personal net worth during the campaign. Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks Guyana 92nd globally, with a score of 39 out of 100, highlighting an urgent need for measures to cultivate public trust and deter corruption. In an election where the economy is being reshaped by oil-driven growth—GDP growth approaching 44%, oil sector
expansion exceeding 57%, and non-oil GDP surging over 13% in 2024—full financial disclosure by public figures is not only reasonable but essential.
Perhaps most egregiously, the campaign period passed without upholding the pledge that any oil revenue expenditure above US$250 million would be subject to a referendum. This promise was touted as a mechanism for citizen oversight of substantial public spending. Yet, according to Vice President Jagdeo, the government explicitly ruled out any referendum on renegotiating the ExxonMobil Stabroek Block contract—even though public sentiment strongly favours such democratic action. A recent survey indicated that 94% of Guyanese support renegotiation, and large majorities want changes to royalties, tax arrangements, and ring-fencing provisions.
Meanwhile, Guyana has already accrued approximately US$6.28 billion in cumulative oil income, compared to US$29 billion in pre-tax profits reported by the oil companies—a disparity of three to five times. While the Natural Resources Fund shows commendable fiscal discipline—with US$3.2 billion, or 60% of oil revenues saved, and only 40%, or US$2.2 billion, spent through parliamentary appropriation processes as of September 2024—the absence of a referendum frustrates efforts to ensure citizen control over the deployment of such large sums.
What is equally, if not more, disturbing is the role of the opposition—or rather, its lack of a role. The silence of the opposition parties on these matters was not only deafening but complicit. By failing to demand debates, insist on asset disclosures, or champion the promised referendum, the opposition abandoned its responsibility to act as a check on power and a defender of the people’s interests. In doing so, they allowed the governing party to dictate the national agenda unchallenged, and the electorate was left with no meaningful alternatives on these pressing issues. Silence in such circumstances is not neutrality; it is acquiescence.
Guyana stands at an inflection point. Its transformative oil boom has fueled unprecedented growth, yet the people are being sidelined from the decisions that will determine whether this moment becomes a blessing or a curse. The absence of debates deprived voters of policy clarity, the lack of financial disclosure eroded public trust, the abandonment of the referendum pledge denied citizens their rightful voice, and the opposition’s complicity weakened the very democratic checks and balances that should protect the nation. Only through transparency, accountability, and genuine public participation can Guyana ensure its oil wealth becomes a shared legacy—and not a missed opportunity.