The Working People’s Alliance (WPA) has denounced the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government over its recent rejection of cash transfers from oil revenues, accusing the administration of betraying its campaign promises and insulting the intelligence and dignity of Guyanese citizens.
The controversy erupted following comments by Minister of Natural Resources Vickram Bharrat, who, in a recent public comment, dismissed the idea of direct cash transfers to citizens as “a failed model,” warning that such a policy would leave Guyana “poorer than where we start from.”
“It’s a failed model. It’s a model that does not work in any part of the world,” Bharrat said, referencing countries such as the United States, Qatar, and the UAE. “I’ve never heard of any cash transfer given [in those countries]. Look at Ghana, look at Angola, and those African countries that produce oil.”
He argued that distributing substantial cash payments—such as GY$500,000 per household—would discourage work, education, and business investment, eventually creating a dependent population and weakening the country’s long-term economic prospects.
“Who will go to school after that? Because if I’m a student…why should I go to school? Why should I study? Why should I get a degree? Why should I go work? Because I’m collecting this money,” he said, adding, “We will end up with a country where expats and foreigners dominate, obviously, because our locals are just sitting back and waiting on their cash transfer at the end of the month.”
Bharrat further justified the administration’s stance by pointing to the finite nature of oil wealth, suggesting the better path forward is to use oil revenues to diversify the economy—investing in sectors such as agriculture, mining, tourism, and manufacturing—as Dubai once did.
WPA Fires Back: “An Unkindest Cut”
In a strongly worded statement, the WPA condemned the minister’s comments as “the most politically dishonest act in modern Guyanese political history,” accusing the government of abandoning a policy it had previously championed during election campaigns.
“WPA is outraged but not surprised at the government’s abandonment of this popular policy intervention,” the party said. “After touting its commitment to these transfers during the recent election, it denounces them less than a month after the elections.”
The WPA took particular issue with Bharrat’s claim that cash transfers would undermine education and work ethic, calling the suggestion “the unkindest cut” and an insult to the people of Guyana.
“What is most galling is the minister’s invocation of the cynical view that cash transfers would result in citizens refusing to work and to go to school. This insult of our people is the unkindest cut by a party and government that loves to boast of its pro-people record,” the statement said.
The WPA also criticised Bharrat for misrepresenting the global context, arguing that cash transfers are, in fact, practiced in many parts of the world, including the United States.
“Finally, the minister’s statement that cash transfers are not distributed in the USA and other [countries] shows how unfamiliar he is with the issue,” the WPA charged.
Cash Grant: A Model Worth Debating, Not Dismissing
Minister Bharrat’s categorical dismissal of cash transfers as a “failed model” stands at odds with a growing body of global evidence. While he cites countries like the U.S., Qatar, and the UAE as examples where such transfers are absent, the reality is more nuanced.
From Ghana’s LEAP programme to humanitarian cash transfers in Bangladesh and successful pilot programs in Kenya and Rwanda, countries across the Global South have used direct cash support to lift families out of extreme poverty, increase school attendance, improve nutrition, and even boost local economies. In many cases, these programs have been lauded not just for their outcomes but for their efficiency and dignity in delivering aid directly to citizens.
What the evidence suggests is that cash transfers are not inherently flawed. Like any policy tool, their success depends on thoughtful design, targeted implementation, and fiscal discipline. Blanket rejection, especially after campaign promises to the contrary, may say more about political expediency than sound economic judgment.
The Government cannot abdicate its responsibility to alleviate poverty and ensure the fair distribution of oil revenues—now exceeding US$6.2 billion since First Oil in 2020. This windfall presents a generational opportunity, and the question is not merely whether to give cash or not. The real choice lies between policy innovation and political inertia, between treating citizens as passive recipients or active partners in national development.
In this context, the debate over direct cash transfers deserves more than slogans or simplistic soundbytes. It calls for serious, data-driven dialogue—grounded in evidence and informed by global best practices. The challenge is to transform oil wealth into lasting national wellbeing, and that demands the political will to learn, adapt, and lead.
