Dear Editor,
A sober reminder for those who need to be reminded of the importance of Guyana’s untainted history.
Guyana’s greatest transition is not merely from poverty to wealth, but from dependence and outward-looking survival to confidence, agency, and national purpose.
The emerging Guyanese state of mind should be neither anti-Exxon nor dependent on Exxon, but confident enough to treat Exxon as a powerful commercial partner whose presence must ultimately serve Guyana’s long-term national interest.
And so, we have two Guyanas existing in the same moment. One is the Guyana of memory of a country that was poor, overlooked, dependent on traditional commodities, and haemorrhaging its most talented people to emigration. For many, leaving was not simply a choice; it was a strategy for survival and advancement. The Guyana of that era was a place people loved deeply but often felt they had to leave to build a better future.
The other is the Guyana of possibility. In 2015, GDP was about US$4.3 billion; by 2024, it had reached nearly US$24.7 billion. Foreign direct investment rose from roughly US$122 million to US$8.6 billion.[1] Oil has transformed the country’s economic prospects and placed Guyana on the global stage in a way few could have imagined a decade ago.
Yet the old Guyana remains visible. A large Guyanese diaspora lives abroad, with roughly 481,000 Guyanese estimated to have been living outside the country in 2015.[2] That diaspora is a reminder of the circumstances that drove generations to seek opportunity elsewhere.
This is why the most profound transformation may not be economic at all. It may be psychological.
There was a time when the Guyanese state of mind was shaped by scarcity and resignation. New York, Toronto, London and other destinations represented opportunity, while Guyana represented home, a place of family, culture and belonging, but often limited economic prospects. Today, that psychology is changing. Guyanese are increasingly asking whether the future they once sought abroad can now be built at home.
But sudden wealth brings its own test of national maturity. Can Guyana resist the temptation to measure progress simply by bigger numbers, bigger projects and greater consumption? Can it convert temporary oil income into permanent improvements in education, infrastructure, institutions, entrepreneurship and human capital?
This brings us to Exxon. ExxonMobil should neither be vilified nor worshipped. It is a powerful multinational corporation whose primary responsibility is to its shareholders. Guyana’s responsibility is to its citizens and future generations. The relationship should therefore be one of confident partnership, not dependency.
Guyana should demand transparency, environmental responsibility, fair value, local participation, technology transfer and the development of Guyanese human capital. Exxon’s presence should ultimately be judged not simply by barrels produced or revenues generated, but by what Guyana is able to build with the opportunity those resources provide.
There is another question that deserves equal attention: What role should the Guyanese who left before 2015 play in this new Guyana?
They left during a period when opportunities were limited. Many supported families at home, sent remittances, built houses, educated relatives, invested in businesses and maintained strong connections to Guyana. They should not claim an individual entitlement to the country’s oil wealth. Oil is a national resource, not a personal inheritance. But neither should those who left be treated as outsiders.
The diaspora possesses skills, capital, experience, professional networks and international connections that can contribute significantly to Guyana’s transformation. If the old Guyana forced people to leave to find opportunity, the new Guyana should create opportunities for them to bring something back.
The relationship between Guyana and its diaspora should evolve from one based primarily on remittances and nostalgia to one based on investment, knowledge, entrepreneurship, professional expertise and national development.
The contrast between the two Guyanas is profound. One was defined by scarcity, debt, emigration and limited opportunity. The other is defined by oil, investment, rapid growth and extraordinary expectations. But the Guyana of memory has not disappeared simply because oil has arrived. The institutions, inequalities, habits and expectations created during decades of scarcity remain.
The real challenge now is whether Guyana can turn extraordinary income into enduring national wealth. Can it build institutions that outlast political administrations? Can it create opportunities beyond oil? Can it ensure that prosperity reaches beyond Georgetown’s expanding skyline and into the lives of ordinary Guyanese?
Guyana now has the financial resources to write a different ending to its history. But money alone will not determine that ending. It will require good governance, accountability, prudent economic management and a national vision that extends well beyond the oil era.
Perhaps the greatest transformation is therefore not found in the oil fields or economic statistics, but in the minds of Guyanese. A nation that once looked outward for its future is beginning to look inward and ask what it can build at home.
That new state of mind must include those who stayed, those who left, those who returned and those deciding whether to come home. It must also recognize that Exxon is a partner, not a master, and that Guyana must have the confidence to manage that partnership in the national interest.
The question before Guyana is no longer simply whether it can become wealthy. It is whether Guyanese, at home and abroad, can develop the wisdom, confidence and collective purpose to ensure that this wealth creates a country in which future generations choose to stay.