As a resource rich country on the cusp of oil gains, the management and distribution of our nation’s promised wealth is often contentiously debated. Given our continuous history of politicians fulfilling themselves and their corporate holders, those who are underprivileged have genuine concerns about how they will benefit from it all.
The popularized belief amongst the populace is that there is nothing to be gained for the working class. Oil wealth will certainly raise our GDP and has already been propelling us from relative international obscurity, but none of this exactly bodes well for the majority. They will largely continue to lack the resources that are needed for their survival and development.
Despite marginal progress over the years, Guyana’s poverty rate has remained relatively high and oil will further widen the gaps of inequality that currently exists. This is because we have never had a wealth generation problem, what we have always had is a wealth distribution problem. While the popularized quote of, the poor will always be with us, is often used to demonstrate the persistent impacts of poverty, many have adopted it to justify inequality and the continued dispossession of minority populations. Those who are poor are regularly portrayed as requiring continuous charity and saving – hapless victims of their own personal failure. The role of government and prioritization of capital economies over humanity however, is rarely ever considered as being the driver that necessitates this inequality.
Opponents that argue against government cash support to those who are poor often state that instead of being distributed, monies should be invested in policies, programmes and sectors such as health, education and housing. They like to utilize the saying that one must teach a person how to fish instead of giving them said fish. This is all well and good, investment should be made into various sectors, policies and appropriate programmes, but that does not negate the need for direct cash support to the people. People need to be given the tools, resources and opportunities needed to succeed.
While it is a well-known fact that the government cannot be relied on when it comes to targeting inequality that does not mean that they should not be. Certainly, individuals can and should come together to achieve communal success, but that shouldn’t necessarily be a burden required of them. I often see stories of individuals in outlying communities in particular, coming together to do things that should be done by central and local government. It is usually framed as feel-good stories of community responsibility, but there is nothing feel-good about government’s consistent failure at providing basic necessities to communities in need. Political leaders are elected to serve the people and put us on a path that does not only consider the route of survival but one of growth amongst those who are poor.
With a still building pandemic and a government that places more value on the health of the economy over the health of its citizens, many safety nets for those who are poor and vulnerable have been removed. Granted that there were budget restrictions/considerations for a prolonged period during 2020 due to the contested elections, to date there has been no inkling of a long-term economic plan for those who continue to be affected by the pandemic. The plan so far however seems solely centred on maximizing profits for the private sector while putting forward a decree of personal accountability to the public.
Tangible support provided so far has been seen in the distribution of cash grants to households across the country. Cash transfers of course are not necessarily new to Guyana, as it has been employed sporadically over the years. When the proposal of utilizing parts of Guyana’s oil wealth to tackle the effects of poverty was brought forward by leading members of the Working People’s Alliance, it quickly became a hotly contested idea. While the coalition tottered over the idea, seeming to have genuine worry over how persons would be spending their money, it was interesting to see how quickly the PPP/C had jumped in with their openness to it. The coalition’s early response showed class bias, the PPP/C’s response showed their class interests agenda. Neither response showed a true understanding of the necessity of financial support to those in need.
Regardless, the cash distribution exercise happening now is a small step forward. It is said that the twenty-five thousand dollars is meant to supplement the income of a household. With the economy being what it is, that sum is certainly a lot of money and seen as a blessing for many people for whom money is often tight. So I get and support the idea behind this. But it also raises a lot of concerns. Not much thought seems to have been given to the fact that many persons at this moment do not have an income to supplement and food accessibility is getting harder with each passing day. What other relief measures are being put in place to assist these persons? Will this grant be a one off distribution for the entire pandemic or will there be more? Are house-to-house visits really the best way in which to distribute sums of monies? Given that many households across the regions targeted have not received, one can see that this distribution method was not very well thought through. In many households, several families reside in the home and due to lack of access to personal housing, a large part of our population rents. While it is said that houses with more than one family will be revisited, what are the considerations put in place for those who are renting and/or un-housed? It would be good to have some insight into the ruling class’s long-term economic plans for the people, but so far they seem perfectly content with remaining out of touch. After all, while COVID-19 does not discriminate, the rich and poor are experiencing the pandemic very differently.
