Veteran trade unionist and General Secretary of the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC), Lincoln Lewis, has raised concerns that Guyana’s unprecedented oil-driven prosperity could deepen national divisions unless the country’s political leadership embraces the constitutional principles of inclusionary democracy and shared governance.
In his June 14 Eye on Guyana column titled “Half a Nation Cannot Be Shut Out of a Trillion-Dollar Economy,” Lewis argued that while Guyana is enjoying historic economic growth, large sections of the population remain excluded from meaningful participation in decision-making and governance.
“Guyana stands today at a dangerous crossroads,” Lewis wrote. “On one hand, we boast of unprecedented wealth, fuelled by oil revenues and evidenced by a record-breaking G$1.558 trillion national budget in 2026, with promises of a multi-trillion-dollar economy on the horizon. On the other hand, we are witnessing the continued entrenchment of exclusionary politics that shut out large sections of our population from meaningful participation in the affairs of the State.”
His comments come as Guyana continues its rapid transformation into a global oil producer. Since first oil production began in December 2019, the country has earned more than US$8 billion in oil revenues through royalties and profit oil. Oil production has propelled Guyana to become the world’s fastest-growing economy for several consecutive years and the richest country in the Caribbean on a per-capita basis.
Yet Lewis argues that economic growth alone cannot be the measure of national success if citizens feel excluded from the institutions and decisions shaping the country’s future.
“This culture of exclusion is evident in the strained relationship between the government and the opposition, between the government and sections of civil society, and even between the opposition and sections of civil society,” he wrote.
According to Lewis, political loyalty is too often rewarded while dissenting voices are ignored. He said this exclusionary approach is reflected in appointments to state boards, commissions and public bodies, and could become further entrenched through the proposed state-owned Development Bank.
Lewis stressed that the issue is not whether Guyana needs such an institution, but how it will be governed.
“This is not a matter of whether Guyana needs such a bank, because we do. It is a matter of who will control it, who will sit on its board, and whose interests it will ultimately serve.”
He warned that the bank must not become another institution controlled by political loyalists, arguing that the resources intended to capitalise it belong to all Guyanese.
“The resources that will capitalise this institution do not belong to the government. They do not belong to a political party. They belong to the people of Guyana.”
At the centre of Lewis’ argument is Article 13 of the Constitution, which establishes the principle of inclusionary democracy and citizen participation in the management and decision-making processes of the State.
“For years, Guyana has operated under a political culture where a parliamentary majority is often treated as a licence to govern without consultation, without compromise, and without regard for the concerns of those who did not vote for the government of the day. But our Constitution does not envision such a system.”
Lewis also challenged the notion that electoral victory grants exclusive control over national institutions and resources.
Guyana’s current Parliament reflects a sharply divided electorate. The governing People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) holds 36 seats in the 65-member National Assembly, while the Opposition controls 29 seats, including 16 held by the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, 12 by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), and one by the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM).
“The election results therefore conferred upon the PPP/C the responsibility to govern, but not the authority to govern as though the other half of the electorate, or those who abstained from voting, do not matter,” Lewis wrote.
He further noted that more than a quarter of eligible voters did not participate in the election, arguing that this reality should encourage broader consultation rather than political domination.
“We cannot continue on this self-destructive path. According to GECOM’s last declaration, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) was allocated half of the votes cast, the combined opposition the other half, and more than a quarter of the voting population did not vote and stayed at home.”
Lewis warned that exclusion from governance can translate into exclusion from economic opportunity.
“The people of Guyana should never find themselves in a position where access to development financing depends on political connections, where citizens must seek the intervention of a politician to secure a loan, or where economic opportunity is filtered through partisan considerations.”
To guard against that outcome, he argued that the Development Bank’s board should include representatives from labour, business, professional organisations, civil society and the opposition.
“The board of a State Development Bank must therefore reflect a broad cross-section of Guyanese society. It must not become another institution controlled by political loyalists.”
Calling on political and civic leaders to defend the principles of inclusionary democracy, Lewis urged the opposition to mobilise labour, business, religious organisations, professional bodies and community groups in support of constitutional governance.
“This is not merely a banking issue. It is a political issue that requires political leadership,” he said.
Lewis concluded with a warning that Guyana’s oil wealth will only become a national blessing if all citizens have a meaningful stake in its management.
“Half of this nation cannot be shut out of a trillion-dollar economy. Such exclusion is not only immoral and unjust; it violates the rights of citizens and undermines the constitutional obligation to govern in an inclusionary manner. If Guyana’s wealth is to become a blessing rather than a source of deeper division, then all the people must have a seat at the table.”
“The moment for action is now.”
