The Ali administration has unveiled an ambitious plan to revitalise the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo). This time, a large investment will fund agro-industrial hubs, road upgrades, youth training, and diversification into rice, cassava, and corn. Mechanisation is the buzzword, and diversification the promise. But for many Guyanese, the announcement sounds less like bold reform and more like a tired refrain.
GuySuCo may well be the most frequently rescued industry in Guyana鈥檚 history. Its revivals have spanned administrations, and the pattern is familiar: massive public spending, political fanfare, and minimal long-term return. What was once a crucial pillar of the national economy, a major employer and a gatherer of foreign exchange became a politically sensitive liability鈥攌ept afloat more by electoral considerations than economic logic. Since the 1980s, the industry struggled with inefficiencies, outdated infrastructure, and exposure to volatile global markets. Early attempts at diversification鈥攕upported by the IMF and World Bank鈥攃ollapsed under poor planning and political interference. Subsequent bailouts only deepened GuySuCo鈥檚 dependence on the state.
The Skeldon Modernisation Project in the 2000s is perhaps the most glaring example of overpromised and underdelivered reform. Billed as a transformational upgrade, it ended in technical failure, poor oversight, and massive debt. By 2015, the company was posting huge annual losses. The cost to the public was enormous鈥攁nd continues to rise. The closure of four estates between 2016 and 2017, though fiscally understandable, devastated communities reliant on sugar. Despite calls for alternative industries鈥攕uch as biofuels, agro-processing, or renewable energy鈥攙ery little materialised. Political inertia prevailed once again.
The new diversification strategy must therefore be judged by its ability to escape the cycle of poor execution and political entanglement. Will it be different this time? Will the proposed crops and training programmes be backed by sound governance and clear metrics? The opportunity cost is considerable. Every dollar spent on GuySuCo is one not spent on improving public health, education, or infrastructure or creating new high paying jobs. Genuine diversification requires governance reform, private sector partnerships, transparency, and鈥攎ost critically鈥攁 clean break from the political dependency that has crippled the corporation for decades.
It is reminded that global sugar trends offer little comfort. Prices remain unstable. International competitors like Brazil and India are formidable. Climate change adds new risks to harvest cycles. Mechanisation alone therefore will not solve these problems鈥攏or will nostalgia. GuySuCo鈥檚 continued survival as a political instrument is unsustainable. It鈥檚 time to stop treating the corporation as a symbol to be defended; if this latest plan is simply a repackaging of old ideas, we are pouring scarce public funds into an entity whose best days are behind it, a fiscally imprudent proposition by any measurement.
Guyana has the resources and capacity to build a modern agro-industrial economy. But doing so requires letting go of what no longer works. The question is not whether GuySuCo should diversify鈥攊t must. The real question is whether this government has the will to outsource this project under governance reform, private sector partnerships and transparency so that transformation is measured credibly, efficiently, and free from political baggage.