The People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) is facing growing criticism over what many are calling a “deceptive double standard” on the issue of distributing Guyana’s oil wealth directly to citizens.
Minister Bharrat: Cash Grants a “Failed Model”
Minister of Natural Resources, Vickram Bharrat, recently dismissed the idea of direct cash transfers to citizens, labelling it a “failed model” that would drag Guyana into economic and social decline. Speaking at a public forum, Bharrat issued a stark warning:
“We will end up poorer than where we start from… a country with people who are not educated… who are not working… just sitting back and waiting on their cash transfer.”
He went further, questioning whether countries like the U.S., Qatar, UAE, Ghana, or Angola provide cash transfers to their citizens, insisting that the model “does not work in any part of the world.”
PPP Campaign Promises Say the Opposite
Yet despite Bharrat’s harsh rejection, PPP leaders have made repeated campaign promises to deliver more cash grants if re-elected.
In March 2025, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo pledged that a future PPP government would introduce a government-backed financial instrument for citizens to invest their cash grants. Then in July, at the party’s official campaign launch, Prime Minister Mark Phillips declared:
“If we pay $100,000, next time we ain’t gon pay you less than $100,000… more cash grant coming.”
This blatant contradiction has raised serious concerns among economists, political analysts, and civil society groups, with critics accusing the PPP of saying one thing in government and another on the campaign trail.
Ali Was Opposed – Until Jordan Showed It Could Work
President Irfaan Ali was once openly opposed cash transfers. That position reportedly shifted after former Finance Minister Winston Jordan demonstrated that a structured, fiscally responsible cash distribution could be implemented without harming the economy.
Jordan supported the widely discussed Clive Thomas model, which proposes targeted, transparent payouts to citizens using oil revenues. Jordan’s analysis showed that such transfers could benefit the poor while avoiding economic distortions—if designed correctly.
Jordan’s Revised Proposal: From Households to Individuals
In October 2024, Jordan proposed abandoning the PPP’s GY$200,000 per-household plan, calling instead for GY$100,000 to each adult citizen. He argued this model was fairer and simpler, avoiding the ambiguity of defining what constitutes a “household.”
Earlier in March 2024, Jordan warned that per-household grants could disadvantage poorer, larger families, and exclude those in informal living arrangements or on the streets. He also proposed leveraging existing registries—Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), National Insurance Scheme (NIS)—to ensure accurate, verifiable disbursement to adults.
While supportive of cash transfers in principle, Jordan cautioned that one-off or poorly designed grants would not eliminate poverty. He maintained that real transformation requires job creation, structural reforms, and long-term development planning—not just periodic handouts.
The Clive Thomas Model: Global Inspiration, Local Relevance
Economist Professor Clive Thomas has long championed the idea of annual direct cash payments to citizens, funded by Guyana’s oil wealth. His model draws inspiration from the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which for decades has provided residents with annual oil revenue shares—without undermining work ethic or education.
Other countries such as Norway, Mongolia, and even Iran have implemented some form of universal or targeted cash transfers from resource revenue. Their experiences counter Bharrat’s sweeping claim that “cash transfers don’t work anywhere in the world.”
Benschop Calls Out PPP’s “Flip-Flop”
Adding fuel to the fire, social activist and radio host Mark Benschop took to social media to criticise the PPP’s apparent policy reversal. He wrote:
“Prior to September 1st General and Regional Elections, the corrupt PPP regime believed in cash grants. Today, the same corrupt PPP regime is telling Guyanese that cash grants are bad for you, bad for Guyana and it makes you dependent and lazy.
The truth is, they lied to you, used you and abused you for your votes, and like in that Patti LaBelle song, you are now left pon u ‘own’ for the next five years. #PoGuyana”
Misinformation or Manipulation?
The contradiction between ministerial statements and campaign promises has led observers to question whether the PPP is dealing with internal confusion or engaging in calculated political manipulation.
While Minister Bharrat warns that cash transfers could ruin Guyana, his party’s election platform leans heavily on them. The mixed messaging has only deepened public scepticism.
A Moment for Clarity, Not Contradiction
With billions in oil revenues flowing into national coffers, Guyanese citizens are not asking for handouts—they are demanding fairness, vision, and leadership rooted in truth.
The question now is not whether Guyana can afford to share its oil wealth—but whether its leaders can afford to keep betraying the promises made to the people.
The time has come for bold, honest leadership—leadership that puts people before politics and future generations before fleeting power. Anything less is not just a failure of policy—it is a failure of purpose.
With more than US$6.2 Billion in oil revenues and royalties from 2020 to mid-2025 Guyana stands at a crossroads. One path leads to inclusion, equity, and shared prosperity. The other, to broken promises and deepening inequality. The people have spoken. Now it’s time for the government to decide which road it will take.
