Dear Editor,

I write in direct reply to Mr. Mohamed Shabeer Zafar’s letter, “A democratically credentialed Guya-nese leader in power cannot ignore the will and desire of the people on the 2016 PSA,” published in Stabroek News on January 11, 2025. Mr. Zafar presents a compelling argument regarding the role of a democratically credentialed leader in responding to the will and desires of the people. His observations underscore a fundamental democratic principle, the responsiveness of leadership to public sentiment. However, while I share his view on the importance of representation, I believe that effective governance requires a far more nuanced approach, one that reconciles popular will and desire with the overarching responsibility to safeguard the long-term welfare of the nation.

This letter seeks to address the points raised by Mr. Zafar while expanding on the delicate interplay between representation and stewardship, a concept central to the governance of national resources and the obligations of leadership. It is my contention that governance, particularly in times of immense national transformation, must transcend the reactive implementation of public sentiment. Instead, it demands prudence, foresight, and a commitment to balancing the immediacy of popular opinion with the enduring necessity of stability and sustainability.

This interplay between representation and stewardship is encapsulated in the concept of Public Trust and Stewardship Responsibility, a principle that obliges leaders to make decisions not solely based on public demand but upon their alignment with the nation’s broader and more sustainable interests. A democratically credentialed leader is entrusted not only with the mandate to reflect the will and desire of the people but also with the profound obligation to exercise wisdom, discernment, prudence, and foresight. This responsibility calls for balancing competing imperatives: the immediacy of popular opinion against the enduring necessity for national stability, prosperity, and sustainability.

To situate this debate in its proper context, it is critical to address a point that has been widely substantiated, including in Dr. Devanand Bhagwan’s insightful response to my original letter. Dr. Bhagwan begins his discourse by recognizing the inequities of the 2016 PSA, an agreement whose terms heavily favoured ExxonMobil. This reality, however, must be understood not in isolation but within the specific geopolitical and economic conditions and the uncertainty (or risk) of the time that shaped it.

In 2016, the risks associated with offshore oil exploration in Guyana were immense. The venture offered no guarantee of success, and the country lacked the institutional infrastructure, technical expertise, and proven reserves necessary to mitigate investor uncertainty. In such circumstances, attracting a global energy giant like ExxonMobil necessitated incentives, favourable contractual arrangements that acknowledged the extraordinary financial and operational risks being undertaken. Investment capital, after all, flows not simply to where it is needed but to where it is welcomed and appreciated (offered the best ROI). The terms of the PSA were a reflection of this reality, designed to secure ExxonMobil’s commitment amid a highly competitive global environment.

Viewed through the lens of hindsight, the agreement now appears disproportionately skewed. The current stability and certainty created by ExxonMobil’s investment, expertise, and risk-taking have dramatically shifted perceptions. What was once an uncertain gamble has become a transformative economic reality, casting the PSA in a less favourable light. However, it is essential to recognize that without ExxonMobil’s initial willingness to absorb the financial and reputational risks of exploration, Guyana’s oil industry might never have materialized. The inequities of the PSA, while glaring, must be understood within this historical context, a context that underscores the indispensability of ExxonMobil’s contribution to Guyana’s current position of strength.

That said, the question before us is not whether renegotiation is justified, using the lens of hindsight; that is a settled matter. The real issue lies in whether a confrontational, contentious, or unilateral approach to renegotiation is wise and strategically prudent. Leadership in this context demands more than the assertion of moral or legal authority; it requires the foresight to evaluate the broader implications of the methods employed. A rash or adversarial strategy could undermine Guyana’s credibility as an investment destination, jeopardize its economic stability, and alienate the very stakeholders whose cooperation is essential to national progress. Prudence must, therefore, take precedence, guiding any effort to recalibrate the terms of the PSA toward sustainable and mutually beneficial outcomes.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle warns of the “tyranny of the majority,” where decisions driven solely by the will of the majority can lead to outcomes that harm the collective good. Plato, similarly, uses the metaphor of a ship’s captain, arguing that only a knowledgeable and experienced navigator can safely steer the vessel, even if the crew clamors for control. These analogies remain profoundly relevant. While a democratically credentialed leader must respect public sentiment, they are obligated to act as stewards of the people’s long-term welfare, ensuring that immediate desires do not jeopardize future prosperity.

Historical examples offer cautionary tales of the perils of adversarial resource governance. Venezuela’s unilateral attempts to nationalize its oil resources and impose unfavourable terms on ExxonMobil led to economic collapse, capital flight, and a prolonged humanitarian crisis. Similarly, abrupt renegotiations in countries such as Ghana and Panama resulted in severe setbacks, underscoring the importance of measured and strategic approaches to managing national resources.

In contrast, the successes of nations such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia illustrate the transformative potential of leveraging natural resources as a foundation for economic diversification. These countries, once heavily reliant on oil revenues, strategically reinvested their initial wealth into sectors such as technology, tourism, renewable energy, and finance. Today, oil contributes only a fraction of their GDPs, approximately 30% in the UAE and even less (22.8%) in Saudi Arabia, demonstrating the power of vision and strategic reinvestment. Guyana, too, must recognize that its path to sustained prosperity lies not in confrontation but in the strategic deployment of its oil wealth to build a diversified and resilient economy.

Ultimately, the role of a democratically credentialed leader is to reconcile the immediate will and desires of the people with the enduring responsibility to act in their best interests. This Public Trust and Stewardship Responsibility demands not only responsiveness to public sentiment but also the courage to guide the nation toward decisions that are sustainable, equitable, and forward-looking. Leadership of this caliber may at times require counseling the populace against unsustainable policies, even at the expense of political capital. Should public sentiment and responsible governance prove irreconcilable, ethical leadership may even necessitate resignation rather than the implementation of policies that would endanger the nation’s welfare.

In conclusion, while the inequities of the 2016 PSA, if seen in insolation, justify calls for renegotiation, the approach must be guided by wisdom, pragmatism, foresight, and an unwavering commitment to Public Trust and Stewardship Responsibility. Governance is not about capitulation but stewardship, a delicate balance between respecting the will and desire of the people and safeguarding their long-term prosperity. Leadership of this caliber ensures that the decisions made today form the foundation for a stronger, more resilient, and more prosperous Guyana tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Dr. Stanley A. V. Paul.