CIVICUS discusses Guyana’s recent election and the challenges of managing its oil wealth with Thomas Singh, Director of the University of Guyana’s Green Institute.

Following the discovery of offshore oil reserves in 2015, Guyana has become one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. While oil revenues have funded new infrastructure projects, critics argue that Guyana’s fossil fuel wealth could bring with it growing corruption, economic inequality and concentration of political power unless there’s a well-thought-out development strategy to guide it. In the 1 September presidential election, President Irfaan Ali secured a second term amid questions about democratic fairness and resource distribution.

How free and fair was the election?

The voting process itself was largely peaceful and transparent. People were able to cast their ballots, the votes were counted and the results were announced in a way that seemed reasonable and credible. On that basic level, the elections were orderly and fair.

However, there were problems during the campaign. As European Union observers noted, the line between state and ruling party was blurred, as President Ali and his People’s Progressive Party (PPP) used government ceremonies, such as the opening of new roads and hospitals and the announcement of promotions in the public sector, as campaign events. This gave them an unfair advantage.

Another serious issue was the use of state resources for partisan purposes, including what many described as acts of political targeting of other parties, such as using government contracts and public services to garner electoral support or using state agencies to harass opposition figures. Therefore, while voting day went smoothly, the campaign environment was far from level. The ruling party used state power to tilt the playing field in its favour.

How did oil wealth influence the election outcome?

Oil revenues and development projects had a huge impact on how people voted. From the moment the PPP took office, it launched major infrastructure projects – such as roads, hospitals and schools – scheduled to be completed just before the election. These visible results allowed the government to campaign on a message of progress and growth, with oil wealth funding larger budgets and bigger promises.

The PPP also used oil money to build patronage networks. Through government contracts and targeted spending, it rewarded individuals and groups who embraced its ‘One Guyana’ platform. Many see this less as a unifying national vision and more as a strategy to consolidate political control.

A significant effect of these policies was to soften traditional ethnic voting patterns. Guyanese politics used to be shaped by ethnic loyalties. Now oil revenues and development projects have created new incentives for voters to cross those old lines. In that sense, the oil boom didn’t just shape campaign promises: it reshaped the political map.

Is everybody benefiting from the oil boom?

There are real concerns that Guyana’s oil wealth is being captured by political and business elites. Many people see the new contracts, mega-projects and big spending as benefiting those already close to power. Inequality remains high, and the oil boom could widen the wealth gap.

At the same time, it would not be accurate to say that people are seeing no benefits. Expansionary fiscal policies, new infrastructure and government programmes funded by oil revenues are creating jobs and opportunities. The multiplier effects are real: when money flows into construction, education and health, it improves people’s lives in tangible ways.

The problem is these benefits are uneven and not guaranteed to last. Many worry the current model is unsustainable, with too much emphasis on short-term spending and too little on structural reforms. Without stronger institutions, the risk is that oil wealth will deepen inequality rather than build long-term prosperity for all.

What reforms does Guyana need to ensure oil wealth strengthens democracy?

What’s most urgent is to create and follow clear fiscal rules that prevent the misuse of oil revenues. Right now, spending decisions are too closely tied to the political cycle, with large projects timed to influence voters. Guyana needs a transparent framework that sets limits on borrowing and on how much oil money can be spent each year. This would reduce opportunities for patronage and ensure stability beyond election cycles.

It is also crucial to strengthen regulatory institutions and prioritise  proper feasibility studies. Independent bodies must oversee how contracts are awarded, how revenues are managed and how public funds are used. If regulators are weak or controlled by political interests, corruption will flourish. Guyana has to give these institutions real autonomy and resources so they can hold the government and private companies accountable.

Reforms should focus on transparency and citizen participation. Publication of detailed information on contracts, spending and project outcomes would enable civil society, the media and communities to track whether promises are being fulfilled. Mechanisms for public consultation and oversight, particularly at the community level, would help ensure oil wealth serves the whole population. Without these checks, the risk is that democracy will be weakened rather than strengthened by the oil boom.