admin

Out with the secret Jagdeo  Aug 16, 2024 Features / Columnists, The GHK Lall Column Kaieteur News – I need help.  Scratch that, please.  It is Guyana’s chief policymaker, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo who needs serious help.  I suggest a huge slug of High Wine instead of any antibiotics or multivitamins, for a start.  Dr. Jagdeo must decide what is the best diagnosis and prescription for himself.  Physician, heal thine own self.  Surgeon Jagdeo, excise or exorcise thy self, dear fellow countryman of mine.  The nation’s chief oil wrestler must make up his mind: he has a choice.  Be a conjurer of fantasies, or a conspirator of Exxon, or a conniver of an extraordinary order.  Jagdeo, being the unprecedented champ that he is, can be all three at once, if that is what pleases him.  What’s up with this interest rate business charged by Exxon, Babu Bharrat?  It is unbelievable that such a simple aspect of regular business could cause a former president so much trouble to get straight. GHK Lall First, the vice president of oil said that there is a cost to capital.  I salute the man.  Bravo, cheerio, and tallyho for getting that one right.  Whether from loans, or return on equity, Exxon is entitled to some money in its pocket.  I am not messing with that brilliance, what is unchallengeable from the unimaginable.  Simply stated, any interest rate charged is the cost of using other people’s money.  I am proud of myself and my learned friend, Dr. Jagdeo, that there is something on which we agree.  Now, he had to go and spoil things, blow out the bucket bottom.  On each occasion that I drop my guard and fool myself into thinking that there is some good in this guy Jagdeo, he does something to make me regret the error of my judgment.  The latest from Guyana’s oil manager-fabricator is that there is no interest rate.  Zero.  A big, fat 0.  Let’s have that one more time for surety’s sake: Exxon is not charging the cost bank any interest.  Truth be told, this is why I have such regard for this great leader Bharrat Jagdeo.  Please don’t question me and put me on the spot by asking if that regard is high, medium, or low.  Or not at all.  We could all do without any more quarreling and cursing from this great, unreconstructed North Korean-East German-Bulgarian commie pretending to be a down home, democratic Guyanese.  If it is not the cost bank being charged hundreds of millions of US, then, where else?  What accounting convention (sleight of hand) is Exxon using to lump its equity/interest charges under? Out with the secret, Bharrat; c’mon, come clean with Guyanese.  This is my response, the kind one: Exxon is not that generous. Not when it can invest/lend those billions anywhere and reap a bumper harvest. No way Exxon loves Guyana so much. Not the Exxon that Guyanese know.  Not in a year of Christmases every single day. Exxon not charging Guyana is the Titanic picking a fight with that iceberg and still sailing serenely forward.  Exxon not taking out hundreds of millions in interest charges for its equity invested (Sir Alistair himself said so) is tantamount to a snowstorm of whiteout conditions in the Sahara. Or over Georgetown.  Exxon is all steel when the issue of renegotiation of its exploitative contract is tabled, not even for a measly one percent more in royalty, but it is considerate enough to gift Guyana all those millions in interest foregone, out of the sweetness of its loving capitalist heart. Exxon is so low as to charge Guyana a few dollars for bungee jumping, yoga dancing, and car washing, but millions upon millions (Uncle Sam) is on the house.  Anytime Exxon decides to get into the ice cream business, I am signing upright now to be a lifetime customer. Routledge and Woods have a conniption fit with audit findings involving a mere US$214M, but they have no hang-ups with letting go of what is easily a half billion American moolah annually just like that, and because Jagdeo say it is so.  How does he come up with mysteries like these?  Is he allowing somebody to make a fool of him, which he then passes on that favor to gullible Guyanese?  I don’t think so; maybe with somebody else, but not Jagdeo.  Somebody is suffering from a permanent hangover, or a case of induced myopia, around here, and I know it is not me.  I am heading for the underground bomb shelters.  The world is coming to an end, and this has nothing to do with any Bible or other sacred book.  From whom does Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo get these concoctions that would reduce an imbecile to tears, and which have all the elements of pure comedy?  If ever I want to take deep dive into the nearest gutter, I am asking to be reincarnated to the vice presidency of Guyana.  When Jagdeo makes a statement, takes a position, like this in public, he transforms into an Egyptian mummy straight out of a Boris Karloff movie.  It figures because I believe that he fancies himself a Guyanese Pharoah. Like some very patriotic Guyanese pray: God help Guyana.  Forget about Guyana, God please help me.  To know better and not to deal with people of the peculiar calibre of Bharrat Jagdeo. Okay, if Guyanese are to believe what Jagdeo just said about zero dollars down by Guyana, and zero interest charged by Exxon, then what is Exxon’s new interest.  Finally, what has the company shown to Jagdeo to captivate his interest. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this  newspaper.) Related Similar Articles

The road to disaster Aug 16, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom Kaieteur News – One can only marvel at the audacity with which the PPPC government has managed to sidestep the establishment of a Petroleum Commission, a move that could only be described as a grotesque display of governance by whimsy. It is a curious spectacle, this deliberate procrastination on a matter so crucial to the regulation of Guyana’s burgeoning oil and gas sector. The excuse offered that such a commission would somehow slow down decision-making, is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has bothered to read beyond the headlines. The purpose of a Petroleum Commission is not to encumber, but to ensure that the sector operates under a framework of transparency, efficiency, and environmental responsibility. Yet, in the PPPC’s view, it appears that the rigors of oversight are merely inconvenient hurdles to be sidestepped in favor of more expeditious, albeit reckless, governance. The consequences of this obstinate refusal to establish a regulatory body are as predictable as they are disastrous. The absence of a Petroleum Commission ensures that the governance of the oil and gas sector remains shrouded in opacity, with decisions concentrated in the hands of a few, or worse, in the grip of one. This is not governance; it is a freak show of control, where the stakes are too high and the players too inexperienced to be left unsupervised. The saga of the PPPC government’s refusal to establish a Petroleum Commission is a tragicomedy of errors, a farcical display of governance where prudence and accountability are sacrificed on the altar of political expedience. In any well-ordered society, the discovery of vast natural resources—such as the billions of barrels of oil off Guyana’s coast—would be met with a corresponding framework of robust regulatory oversight. This oversight is not merely a matter of good governance; it is an essential safeguard to ensure that the nation’s resources are managed in a manner that benefits all, rather than a select few. Yet in Guyana, the PPPC government has chosen to eschew such safeguards, instead opting for a regime where decision-making is concentrated in the hands of the few, where oversight is seen as a hindrance rather than a necessity, and where the very idea of a Petroleum Commission has been relegated to the status of an inconvenient afterthought. It is worth recalling the origins of the Petroleum Commission and why its establishment is not only a matter of legislative formality but one of urgent national importance. The APNU+AFC government, in a rare moment of foresight, recognised the need for institutional and regulatory development in the oil and gas sector. They sought and secured a US$20 million facility from the World Bank to support this endeavor. Among the funded project-components was the development of a draft Petroleum Commission Act, a piece of legislation designed to ensure that the exploration, development, and production of petroleum in Guyana would be conducted efficiently, safely, and in an environmentally responsible manner. This was not merely a bureaucratic exercise; it was a foundational step towards ensuring that the wealth generated from Guyana’s oil reserves would be managed in a way that benefits the entire nation. The APNU+AFC government developed and tabled a Petroleum Bill, a comprehensive piece of legislation that outlined the functions and responsibilities of the Petroleum Commission. It was designed to be a key regulatory body, tasked with overseeing every aspect of petroleum operations in Guyana. The Commission was to promote government policies, review and recommend plans and proposals to the Minister, manage bid rounds for licensing, and ensure compliance with national laws, health, safety, and environmental standards. It was also to play a crucial role in monitoring petroleum operations, including reserve estimation and production measurements, promoting local content and participation, and maintaining a national petroleum databank. In short, the Commission was envisioned to be the backbone of Guyana’s oil and gas sector, ensuring that it operated in a manner that was both transparent and accountable. Yet, despite the clear and pressing need for such an institution, the PPPC government has allowed the Petroleum Bill to languish in the National Assembly, gathering dust while the sector it was meant to regulate continues to expand at breakneck speed. When the PPPC assumed office, they signaled that they would move swiftly on two key pieces of legislation: the Natural Resource Fund Act and the Petroleum Commission. They have instituted the former, albeit not without controversy, but have prevaricated on the latter. And now, in a move that can only be described as comical, they offer the explanation that the implementation of the Petroleum Commission would slow down decision-making in the oil and gas sector. This argument is not only disingenuous; it is dangerously misleading. The claim that a Petroleum Commission would impede decision-making is a gross misrepresentation of its purpose and function. A Petroleum Commission, as envisioned in the APNU+AFC’s draft legislation, is not a roadblock but a facilitator. It is there to ensure that decisions are made based on sound analysis, that they are in line with national policies, and that they are executed in a manner that protects the interests of the Guyanese people. The Commission’s role is to provide oversight, to monitor compliance, and to hold operators accountable. It is to be the eyes and ears of the nation in the oil and gas sector, ensuring that every barrel of oil extracted from Guyana’s shores is accounted for, and that the revenues generated are used for the benefit of all Guyanese. The PPPC’s refusal to establish the Petroleum Commission can only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to avoid this kind of scrutiny. By keeping the sector unregulated and free from oversight, they have created a situation where decisions can be made behind closed doors, with little to no transparency. This is not the kind of governance that the people of Guyana deserve, nor is it the kind of governance that will ensure the sustainable development of the nation’s resources. The concentration of power in the hands of a few, or worse, in the hands of one, is a recipe for disaster. It creates an environment where corruption can flourish, where the interests of the nation can be sacrificed for the benefit of a select few, and where the long-term stability of the sector is put at risk. The consequences of this approach are all too predictable. Without a Petroleum Commission to provide oversight, there is little to prevent the mismanagement of the sector. The lack of regulatory oversight means that operators are free to act with impunity, cutting corners on safety and environmental standards, and engaging in practices that may be detrimental to the long-term sustainability of the sector. This is not a scenario that any responsible government should allow to unfold, yet it is precisely the scenario that the PPPC seems determined to create. In light of these concerns, it is imperative that the international community takes a stand. Donor countries and agencies that are committed to supporting the responsible development of Guyana’s oil wealth must withhold all funding for the sector until the Petroleum Commission is established. The message to the PPPC should be clear: the world will not bankroll a descent into chaos. If the PPPC is serious about governing in the interests of all Guyanese, they must move swiftly to establish the Petroleum Commission and ensure that the sector is subject to the kind of rigorous oversight that it requires. Failure to do so will not only put the future of the oil and gas sector at risk; it will also undermine the credibility of the government.. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this  newspaper.) Related Similar Articles

Guyana’s storage and emissions of carbon dioxide greenhouse gas Aug 16, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, I offer the following clarifications to apparent misunderstandings by President Mohamed Irfaan Ali in his encounter with BBC ‘Hard Talk’ journalist Stephen Sackur (KN, ‘Bring it in – President Ali’s seminal defence of Guyana’s road map’, 01 April 2024) and by General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo in his weekly Press encounters (DPI, ‘Guyana will remain a carbon sink even at maximized oil production – GS Jagdeo’, 29 March 2024).  Doubts about these PPP claims have been expressed many times before, most recently by Peeping Tom in KN, ‘Is Guyana’s forest carbon what the government says it is?’, 01 April 2024. Starting with the stored forest carbon: our natural tropical rainforest covers an area estimated as about 18.5 million hectares (Mha) in 1990 and 17.8 Mha in 2022; source = Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) ‘MRVS Interim Measures Report for Year 12 = 2022, table 7-1.  MRVS is the acronym for ‘Monitoring, Reporting and Verification System’. Subtraction between these two areas would suggest that we have lost nearly 0.2 Mha in just over 30 years, mainly from uncontrolled mining.  But that would not be correct because consultants Indufor with the GFC have re-estimated the baseline area of standing forest as higher-resolution satellite imagery and better trained GFC staff have enabled fresh looks at older imagery.  The baseline was re-set in 2012, 2018 and 2022. Also, the estimate of natural rainforest area has been revised by the GFC to eliminate the areas of forest which are cleared, farmed and regenerated in the ecologically-appropriate traditional rotational agriculture of the Amerindian communities.  It was agreed in 2009, in the early stages of the first version of the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS), that Amerindian forest clearing for farming would not be considered as a component of national deforestation, so this adjustment brings the MRVS and LCDS into alignment. If we add up the successive areas of deforestation in the same MRVS table 7-1, the total over 32 years is 161,460 ha instead of the 198,780 ha by simple subtraction.  Deforestation varies from a high of 14,650 to a low of 6,470 ha per annum.  The high figure is usually associated with a high gold price, the low figure has been associated with low gold price and mine closures because of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Average annual deforestation over the 32 years has been 5,046 ha.  Winrock International with the GFC estimated in 2018 an average of 1,213 tonnes of stored (sequestrated) carbon dioxide (CO2) per hectare; see page 121 in LCDS 2030.  The average annual loss of CO2 from deforestation in Guyana is 5046×1213= 6.12 million tonnes. There are other losses of forest carbon from forest degradation which are also estimated and explained in the annual GFC/MRVS reports, but we can ignore them for the purpose of this letter. How does the annual loss of forest carbon compare with the amount left in the standing natural tropical rainforest?  The LCDS 2030 uses the MRVS 2020 year 10 estimate of 18,001,790 hectares of remaining natural forest and 1213 tCO2/ha of sequestered carbon to give a national total of 21.8 Gigatonnes.  Even if we take 10 years of average deforestation (61.2 million tCO2), this a tiny fraction of the carbon stored in the standing forest.  We should note that the expert reviewers of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were doubtful about the carbon density per hectare of forest claimed by Guyana (much higher than previous estimates by Hans terSteege in 2000 and Denis Alder & Marijke van Kuijk in 2009 for the GFC).  Winrock/GFC replied that Guyana’s trees had higher density than the tropical average. How do these figures fit into the frequent claims by Guyanese leaders that Guyana is providing an enormous ecological benefit to the world from the carbon in its standing forest?  As I explained in the 10-part series on ‘Carbon in the forests of Guyana’ published by Stabroek News in 2009(July 27-August 18), this claim is based on a misunderstanding by the leaders.  The standing natural tropical rainforest is in dynamic equilibrium.  Like all living things, the trees grow and die.  During daylight hours, the trees accumulate carbon through photosynthesis.  During the night, most of that carbon is respired back to the atmosphere.  And most of the stored carbon retained in each tree is also lost back to the atmosphere when trees decay and die; some adds to stored soil carbon, but this also is subject to natural carbon cycling unless buried under anaerobic conditions and, over tens of millions of years, becoming coal or – indeed – petroleum. So the standing forest is carbon neutral because the forest area is not increasing – on the contrary, it is declining through uncontrolled deforestation and degradation – and because forest growth is not being accelerated by silvicultural treatment under GFC administration. Thus Guyana’s forests have no nett positive effect on global atmospheric carbon, contrary to the claims by Guyanese leaders.  Also, uncontrolled deforestation, plus the generation of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel for generation of electric power and transport, especially on the coastland, mean that Guyana has been a nett emitter of atmospheric carbon for decades. Now let us look at the carbon emissions resulting from Exxon’s extraction of Guyana’s offshore deep-water oilfields.  Average daily extraction is around 650 thousand barrels per day (Kbpd) and rising, from 3 FPSOs.  10 FPSOs are planned, and they will be twice the size or larger than the first, FPSO Liza Destiny.  650 Kbpd x 350 days/year = 227.500 million barrels/year.   Scope 1 emissions are from extraction and preliminary processing (including the flaring of associated gas); Scope 2 emissions are from the refinery processing into a multiplicity of petroleum products. Scope 3 emissions are mainly from consumer combustion of fuel.  The Carnegie Endowment (https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/02/09/breaking-down-barrel-tracing-ghg-emissions-through-oil-supply-chain-pub-62722) provides a guide to show how Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions from ‘conventionally managed light oil’ generate a total of almost half a tonne (475 kg) of CO2e per barrel of oil. Multiplying our 227.500 barrels/year by 475 kg of CO2e emissions = 108.063 million tonnes of CO2e, from the 3 FPSOs.  As 10 FPSOs are planned, and using the 10-year time period in the question raised by the BBC journalist, Guyana’s emissions are 108.063 x (10/3) FPSOs x 10 years = 3.6 Gigatonnes.  So Stephen Sackur’s question about 2 Gigatonnes for total emissions over 10 years was indeed an underestimate by 1.6 Gigatonnes.This is quite the opposite of the conclusions of both President Ali and General Secretary Jagdeo. Guyana’s predicted total emissions are enormous, on a per capita basis by far the largest in the world.  And Guyana’s nett emissions from uncontrolled deforestation also contribute to global climate heating, although in a relatively tiny amount. Your truly, Janette Bulkan Related Similar Articles

PM Phillips needs to know actions speak louder than words Aug 16, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Please permit me to thank the Prime Minister for his response as well as his public acknowledgement that contradicts the untruths which claim that nothing was done during 2015 – 2020. The Prime Minister’s response finally clarifies the deception with regards to GPL’s 2015 – 2020 performance, the facts are that 60+ MWs of power was procured under the Coalition within four years, which is a clear indication that the Coalition was aware of our increasing power demand and made adequate provisions to address these needs. The PM unwittingly also dispelled another untruth that was being peddled by his administration – that GPL was cash strapped under the Coalition’s administration – when he acknowledged that GPL was able to purchase generating sets from its own resources. Further, I thank the PM for highlighting a major omission in my previous letter, where the figures listed for Transmission and Distribution upgrades were those undertaken and funded by GPL ONLY. If the works executed under the Power Utility Upgrade Program (PUUP) during the 2015 – 2020 period are included there would be evidence of a more impressive record, since under the PUUP program the following additional to works were completed – upgraded 404km of low and medium voltage network, installed 231 new transformers as well as 23,493 new AMI meters. This letter seeks to highlight that work was done and plans were developed to manage the challenges at GPL and the growing demand of our country. This letter further seeks to ask our government to appreciate that PR does not provide much needed electricity, nor does it replace equipment destroyed by continuous voltage fluctuations. Families and businesses need the Government to make improvements within a properly constructed plan and provide a stable, reliable service for customers, which is foundational to our country’s development. Finally, in another letter in your newspaper, Mr. Joel Bhagwandin has demanded an explanation from me (and former President Granger), on our failure to comply with Section 67 of the Public Corporation Act and submit reports annually to the National Assembly – the explanation is simple – GPL is a limited liability company, established under the Company Act, No 29 of 1991, the company’s bylaws were adopted and ratified on October 8, 2010, the main shareholder is the Government of Guyana. Hence, the company does not fall under the Public Corporation Act, however GPL is audited annually and publishes an annual report which is available to the public. Actions speak louder than words; citizens need to feel the outcomes of actions on their lives. Regards, David Patterson Related Similar Articles

Latest Govt statement on border controversy utterly useless Aug 16, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, The recent statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation on April 3rd concerning the serious and escalating situation with Venezuela was utterly useless. The dictator of Venezuela is about to visit Russia to solidify himself and ensure support for his regime’s efforts against Guyana, and the Ministry has yet to recall our ambassador from Venezuela. Guyana must take a definitive position on this matter by also expelling the Venezuelan ambassador to Guyana and closing their embassy in Georgetown.It is utter nonsense for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to continually issue statements with no actions being taken to push back on the Venezuelan dictator and his regime. Maduro has shown the world that he has no respect for the Guyanese government. Is it that the Ministry lacks leadership? Or is it that the inexperience shown earlier with the Ministry’s blunder on Guyana’s position on Taiwan is once again being witnessed? Some Guyanese are even more concerned that the new surge of illegal narcotics linked to Venezuelans in the country is also causing a lack of objectivity amongst key officials. Hopefully, this is not the case.It is time for all Guyanese to place the sovereignty of our motherland over any other benefit that could be had by maintaining ties with Venezuela’s dictator and his regime. CRG urges the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation to recall our Ambassador and to also ask their Ambassador to leave. Thus closing the Venezuelan embassy in Georgetown and our embassy in Caracas. The Ministry should also reach out to the Russian Government and ask them to take a neutral position if not a supportive one on the border controversy with Venezuela. Regards, Mr. Jamil Changlee Related Similar Articles

Stupid actions must carry sensible consequences Aug 16, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, It seems reason has taken flight and the mental condition has deteriorated to such an extent that the senseless act, in the matter of the drag race accident which took place in an East Coast community between two vehicles, one,  allegedly driven by a fifteen year old, reeks of pure and utter madness.   Now three children are fighting for their lives and their world and that of their families turned upside-down. When will the madness on the roadways end? How could vehicles be racing in a community, and how could a fifteen year old be allowed to take the wheel of a vehicle? The older driver saw it fit and proper to inculcate bad and poor road and driving habits in a young, prospective driver – speeding, disregarding life, property, rules of the road and safe driving practices. Now the younger one, because of a single moment of recklessness and gay abandonment, is scarred for life.  Both young men must face the full force of the law.  Stupid actions must carry sensible consequences.  Their actions were not only outrageous but downright irresponsible and foolish.  For that there can be no negotiation or compromise. I wish the children a full and speedy recovery and hope they are able to overcome this traumatic event in their lives, even as their families find the strength to cope with the agonizing situation. Regards, Shamshun Mohamed Related Similar Articles

Brother Eusi Kwayanais 99 years old today! Aug 16, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Today, April 4, 2024, Eusi Kwayana turns ninety-nine. He is the only living member of the class of 1953—the foremost leaders of the original PPP. It is difficult to properly analyze modern Guyanese politics without taking into consideration Eusi Kwayana’s wide ranging contributions. His political career has spanned the eight decades, which mirrors the period normally referred to as the modern phase of Guyanese and Caribbean politics. This article pays tribute to Kwayana by offering an overview of his political life and work. Eusi Kwayana, formerly Sydney King, was born 1925 and has been involved in Guyana’s national politics since 1947.He has been referred to as the “Sage of Buxton,” Renaissance Man” and “Guyana’s Gandhi,” among other descriptions. His public life is multi-faceted– political activist, educator, writer, journalist, dramatist, folklorist, and historian. But it is as a political activist that Kwayana has made his most telling contribution and is best known to Guyanese. He has become one of Guyana’s most distinguished political leaders. Ironically, he has also been one of the most controversial and misunderstood public personalities. He entered the political arena as a supporter of Cheddi Jagan in his successful bid for a seat in the Legislative Council in 1947. He soon joined the Political Affairs Committee (PAC), a small left-wing group that was the precursor to the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), the country’s first mass-based political party. He served as Assistant General Secretary of the PPP, Kwayana, who easily won his parliamentary seat, became Minister of Works in the new government which lasted for 133 days. By this time, he was regarded by the British as a staunch communist. This perception was based largely on his militant stance on independence. During his short tenure as Minister of Works he improved the country’s transportation system. His militancy was captured in a statement which has since become part of Guyana’s political folklore. When after a mere 133 days of the PPP government the British suspended the constitution, fired the ministers, and landed troops in the country, Kwayana was one of the leaders cited by the governor as the “ringleaders” of the communist conspiracy. He and other ringleaders were arrested and detained for close to three months. It was while he was minister that he uttered the famous words to the then governor—I will not stand for this confounded nonsense. It has since been translated into popular folklore as “This confounded nonsense must stop.” While Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham, the party’s primary leaders quickly became identified with the East Indian and African communities respectively, Kwayana an African was seen as neutral. While he was aware of the ethnic rumblings among the party’s supporters, he felt that independence was paramount. This balancing act by Kwayana was evidenced when there were two challenges to Jagan’s leadership of the party Forbes Burnham, the party’s chairman, first challenged Jagan for the leadership of the party before the 1953 election. Most of the African leadership supported Burnham, but Kwayana vehemently defended the Jagan’s right to remain as the leader. His simple reason was that Jagan had done nothing to warrant removal from the position. When some members proposed Kwayana as the compromise leader, a suggestion supported by Burnham, Kwayana turned down the offer on the grounds that he did not want to be seen as wresting the position from Jagan. Burnham made another bid for the leadership after the electoral victory in 1953, but once again Kwayana came to Jagan’s defense. Burnham eventually withdrew his challenge after a compromise on the makeup of the cabinet. When, in 1955, the PPP split generally along ethnic lines, Kwayana was one of a group of Africans that remained with the Cheddi Jagan faction. However, he left the Jagan faction in 1956 largely over the party’s refusal to take Guyana into the West Indies Federation. After unsuccessfully running as an independent candidate at the 1957 election he joined the newly- formed People’s National Congress (PNC) led by Forbes Burnham and served as General Secretary and editor of the party’s organ, New Nation until he was expelled from the party in 1961 for publicly engaging the ethnic problem. He co-founded in 1961 the African Society for Racial Equality (ASRE), which was dedicated primarily to raising cultural consciousness among African Guyanese and championing the cause of ethnic equality. As ethnic insecurity by both groups became more manifest, Kwayana, on behalf of ASRE, proposed a power sharing arrangement or “joint premiership” between the leaders of the two ethnic parties with partition of the country into three zones – African, Indian, and Mixed – as a last resort. Both leaders rejected the proposal. ASRE was disbanded a year later, amidst fears of dividing the African-Guyanese community and the country descended into open ethnic conflict that lasted from 1961 to 1964. Kwayana’s Joint Premiership proposal was the first power sharing initiative placed on the national agenda. In that regard, he is the Guyanese and Anglophone Caribbean pioneer of power sharing or shared governance. Amidst the ethnic violence that engulfed the country, Kwayana,in 1964, co-founded the African Society for Cultural Relations with Independent Africa (ASCRIA), which, like ASRE, committed itself to the promotion of African pride, dignity, and culture among African Guyanese. He served as Coordinating Elder of ASCRIA and changed his name to Eusi Kwayana, which, in Swahili, means “Black Man of Guyana.” Although he never rejoined the PNC he supported the party, which rose to power in 1964 as part of a coalition with the United Force (UF).He held several influential positions in the government— head of the National Land Settlement Committee; chairman of the Guyana Marketing Corporation (GMC); chairman of the Cooperative Insurance Committee; and chairman of a committee charged with converting the Guyana Cooperative Credit Society into a Cooperative Bank. He was also instrumental in developing the country’s foreign policy towards Africa. In addition, it was he, Kwayana who suggested to Burnham that our republic be named the “Cooperative Republic of Guyana.” One of the first acts of the new PNC led government was to send Kwayana on a visit to Africa on its behalf. He visited thirteen African countries and met with heads of government and other state officials. He explained the ethnic situation in Guyana and urged support for the new government. He also met with leaders of the liberation movements fighting against apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia; he had taken a donation of twenty pounds sterling which was collected at an ASCRIA meeting in Buxton. In 1971 he broke with the PNC over the issue of government corruption and became one of its severest critics. In the process Kwayana and ASCRIA began to develop relations with other radical anti-government organizations such as Moses Bhagwan’s Indian People’s Revolutionary Associates (IPRA and Clive Thomas’ RATOON which in 1974 merged to form the Working People’s Alliance (WPA). He has been a 1eading member of the party and was its presidential candidate in 1985 and parliamentarian in the years 1986-90. Critically, during this period he directly and indirectly mentored an entire group of political activists who have continued to serve in public life in Guyana and beyond. There are five aspects of Kwayana’s political life that stands out…First, for him politics is not a path to power but a medium for service and collective liberation. Second, while he has held strong ideological positions, he has not been dogmatic. He preferred to be guided by fairness rather than political correctness. Third, although he has held leadership positions in three major political parties, he has never sought the top position. He turned down such positions several times. Notably, in 1953 when there was a leadership impasse in the PPP, he was proposed as leader of the party. Forbes Burnham pledged his willingness to serve under him, but Cheddi Jagan did not, Kwayana promptly declined, and the rest is history. Fourth, he is the only major Caribbean politician who has publicly admitted to mistakes on important issues. Fifth, his political practice has been grounded in political morality. An important aspect of Kwayana’s political life has been his ability to influence politics outside of formal political office. There are two major factors that contributed to this. First, he has taken on issues of fairness and justice, even when it is not politically correct to do so. In this regard, his concern is always whether it is fair or just. Second, he has been fiercely independent; his bottom line has always been what best for the people and the country rather than for the party or leader.This independent thought and action have contributed to carving out an independent or third space in a political process that is dominated by duality. His independence was manifested not only by actions outside of the two major parties but when he functioned inside the parties. This independent or third space accommodated ASCRIA in the 1960s, the WPA from the 1970s and more recent organizations such as the Alliance for Change (AFC). The importance of this independent space is its ability to constantly provide a critique of the dominant tendencies that have had both radicalizing and democratizing effect on the political process. Walter Rodney’s direct impact on the politics of the 1970s was facilitated by this third space. Although Kwayana functioned in the executive branch for just 133 days and in the legislature for a little over five years, he has had a major impact on every major political episode in Guyana.Kwayana has been a strong believer in organization and movements. From his entry into national life in the late 1940s to the present he has always belonged to at least one major national organization. He is the only major political leader in Guyana to play leading roles in the three defining movements of the last seven decades—the Independence, Black Power, and Pro-Democracy movements. Another important aspect of Kwayana’s political praxis is his engagement of the concrete. Although he was ideologically grounded in the left wing of Caribbean politics, he avoided the dogmatism that has sometimes immobilized his fellow travelers. Because his point of departure has always been the concrete conditions, he drew lessons from them rather than imposing lessons on them. This in turn has contributed to his broad praxis which is sometimes wrongly projected as changes in his approach. While Marxists generally avoided the issue of race and ethnicity, Kwayana did not. No public person since 1961 has written and spoken more on Guyana’s persistent ethnic problems. He was the first political leader to raise the issue of race as a central problem in the political process and offered a solution. Since then, he has functioned simultaneously as the foremost messenger of African cultural pride and regeneration in Guyana and an advocate of multiracial working-class solidarity and unity. He is as committed to the working-class liberation as he is to African progress and freedom. This engagement of ethnicity and race in an ethnically divided country has earned him the status of both hero and villain. But in the final analysis, his political life reflects the persistent dilemma of race, ethnicity and class. More than any other political person of his generation, he has managed to synthesize the three. Kwayana has a long trail of writings, beginning with his writings in the PPP’s Thunder in the early 1950s during which time he wrote many articles and editorials that did not carry his byline. He would later serve as editor of the PNC’s New Nation, ASCRIA’s ASCRIA Drums and WPA’s Dayclean and Open Word. In addition to his journalistic writings, Kwayana has written many books, academic papers and policy papers. Most of his writings have addressed the concrete issues of the particular time, but others have addressed broad issues such as race and ethnicity, governance, and culture. He has also written the party songs of the PPP, PNC and WPA. I end this overview of Kwayana’s work with a personal note. I have had the good fortune of working with and learning from some of the best intellectuals and political minds in Guyana. My experience as a member of the WPA for the last five decades has been the finest education in politics and public engagement. In all of this, the persistent example of Eusi Kwayana has been pivotal. He is the finest human being I have encountered in my life’s journey. Sincerely, David Hinds Related Similar Articles