With Guyana preparing to celebrate its 60th Independence Anniversary on May 26, the People’s National Congress Reform/A Partnership for National Unity (PNCR/APNU) has argued that while the country achieved political sovereignty six decades ago, the promise of economic independence and shared prosperity remains unrealised for many citizens.
In an Independence message issued ahead of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, the opposition partnership urged Guyanese to reflect not only on the historic achievement of nationhood but also on whether the benefits of the country’s unprecedented economic growth are reaching ordinary people.
“Independence is not just a flag, a parade, or a national holiday. It must mean that Guyanese people have real control over their country, their economy, and their future,” the grouping stated.
Guyana attained Independence from United Kingdom on May 26, 1966 under the government of Prime Minister Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham and the People’s National Congress (PNC). The PNCR/APNU described Burnham as the principal architect of Independence and said his vision extended beyond political freedom to economic empowerment and national ownership of the country’s resources.
The party also recognised former Prime Minister Hamilton Green, the sole surviving delegate to the constitutional conferences in London that negotiated Guyana’s Independence.
According to the PNCR/APNU, Burnham consistently argued that political independence would be incomplete without economic independence. His administration advanced policies of self-reliance under the slogan “Feed, Clothe and House the Nation,” promoted agricultural expansion and local production, and pursued greater national control over strategic sectors of the economy, including bauxite, sugar, banking and insurance. While those policies remain the subject of political debate, the opposition said Burnham’s central message—that Guyanese must benefit from the wealth of their own country—remains relevant in the modern oil era.
That issue, the party argued, was recently highlighted by chartered accountant and attorney-at-law Christopher Ram, who told a PNCR Independence Symposium that Guyana had secured political independence but had yet to create a truly independent economy that works for all its citizens.
“We are now an oil-producing nation. Every day we hear about record growth, revenues, budgets, and construction,” the statement said. “But many Guyanese are asking a simple question: if the country is so rich, why are so many people still struggling?”
The opposition accused the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) administration of prioritising spending on celebrations, concerts and public relations while failing to adequately address poverty, low wages and the rising cost of living.
The PNCR/APNU devoted significant attention to what it described as a worsening affordability crisis, arguing that many families continue to struggle with rising food prices, transportation costs, rent, utilities, medicine and other necessities despite unprecedented oil revenues.
Pointing to the ongoing dispute over proposed increases in minibus fares, the partnership said the controversy reflects broader economic pressures affecting both operators and commuters. It argued that while the government has threatened sanctions against operators who increase fares without approval, it has failed to address the rising costs of fuel, tyres, spare parts and vehicle maintenance that are driving demands for higher fares.
“Threatening operators is not a cost-of-living strategy,” the statement declared, while urging the government to consider measures such as reducing VAT and import duties on essential goods, raising the income tax threshold, providing stronger support for pensioners and low-income families, and investing more heavily in agriculture and food production.
The PNCR/APNU said the true measure of independence is not GDP growth, oil production or the size of the national budget, but whether citizens experience meaningful improvements in their daily lives.
“Can families afford food? Can workers live on their wages? Can young people find decent jobs? Can farmers produce and earn? Can small businesses survive?” the partnership asked.
A 2025 report by the Inter-American Development Bank titled Ten Findings About Poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean painted a troubling picture of poverty in Guyana despite years of rapid oil-driven economic growth. The report estimated that approximately 58 per cent of Guyanese live in poverty, surviving on less than US$6.85 per day, while 32 per cent live in extreme poverty, surviving on less than US$3.65 daily.
The IDB identified Guyana among the countries in the region with the highest poverty rates, noting that more than half of the population lives in poverty and more than 30 per cent in extreme poverty. The report also found that more than two-thirds of those living in extreme poverty are located in rural communities.
However, a number of local commentators and analysts contend that poverty remains widespread and may in fact be understated by official statistics. They point to the escalating cost of living, rising food prices, stagnant wages in many sectors, housing pressures and the absence of comprehensive social protection measures as indicators that economic growth has not translated into broad-based improvements in living standards for many household
Linking economic concerns to broader issues of democracy and inclusion, the opposition said genuine independence also requires fairness and equal opportunity for all Guyanese regardless of race, religion, region, class or political affiliation.
“Guyana must work for all Guyanese, not only for those close to power,” the statement said.
The party concluded that while Guyana has much to celebrate on its 60th Independence Anniversary, the struggle to fulfil the original promise of nationhood continues.
“Our foreparents did not struggle only for a flag. They struggled for a country where Guyanese could live decently, speak freely, work honestly, and benefit from the wealth of their own land,” the PNCR/APNU said. “That work is not finished.“
