𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐱𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐈𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐏𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫: 𝐆𝐮𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚’𝐬 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐁𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐰

 Proximity Is Not Power : Guyana’s Work Begin Now

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar November 2026

In Texas, James Talarico defeated Ken Paxton for the United States Senate, while Gina Hinojosa defeated Greg Abbott to become the state’s first Latina governor. In Georgia, Keisha Lance Bottoms won an election that will make her the first Black woman governor in American history. Debbie Haaland became New Mexico and the US first female Native American governor, El- Sayed becomes the first Muslim American in the Senate winning in  Michigan, sending a powerful message that people’s power trumps special interest economic power. Power can’t be bought when people come together.

These were not merely changes of personnel. They breached political strongholds that had long seemed beyond the opposition’s reach.

For Guyana, the lesson is not that American political outcomes can simply be imported. It is that power which looks permanent can still be challenged—and that proximity to a powerful leader is not transferable political legitimacy.

President Irfaan Ali should consider that distinction carefully.

A foreign partnership is not a domestic mandate

Ali has invested heavily in closer relations with Washington. In October, he signed an enhanced defense partnership with the United States, expanding cooperation in training, military exercises and defense expertise. His government presents that relationship as a means of protecting Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

That objective deserves serious consideration, not reflexive dismissal. Guyana is entitled to pursue international partnerships that protect its people and its borders.

But there is a line between maintaining a necessary relationship with the United States and allowing the political prestige of an American president to become a substitute for accountability at home.

Ali has rejected suggestions of American domination, describing the relationship as a partnership between sovereign states, grounded in shared interests. Those assurances establish a standard against which his government should be judged—not a reason to suspend scrutiny.

Where are the benefits? What obligations accompany them? What safeguards protect independent decision-making? What is disclosed to the public, and what remains beyond meaningful examination?

A photograph in Washington cannot answer those questions. Neither can a handshake.

The central issue is accountability.

The warning from America

The American results do not remove Trump from the presidency. Nor do they automatically unravel Guyana’s relations with the United States. But the reported Democratic victories, including the capture of the House and major statewide breakthroughs, demonstrate the limits of political dominance. A leader can command a party without commanding the public indefinitely.

That is the warning for any government tempted to confuse access abroad with consent at home.

No foreign president can lend a Guyanese administration the trust it must earn from Guyanese citizens. No strategic alliance can excuse a government from explaining its decisions. No international endorsement should place public contracts, national resources or executive conduct beyond scrutiny.

Friendship with Washington must serve Guyana. It must never become an argument for insulating Guyana’s leaders from their own people.

And those who believe Ali has compromised national or regional positions must make the case precisely: identify the decision, establish the previous commitment, disclose the consequences and demand an answer. Anger gains force when it is supported by evidence. Unsupported accusation gives power an escape route.

Opposition must become an alternative

For Guyana’s opposition, this is not an invitation to celebrate someone else’s victory and wait for history to repeat itself.

An American election will not organize a Guyanese constituency. A setback for Trump will not produce a credible program for Guyana. Foreign political drama cannot do the work of domestic democratic renewal.

The opposition must become more than a collection of grievances. It must offer a government people can imagine trusting.

That means putting forward clear commitments on the cost of living, public services, wages, transparent procurement and the management of national wealth. It means explaining not only what must change, but how change would be delivered—and accepting scrutiny of its own leadership, financing and promises.

Those asking the country for trust must demonstrate that they understand the obligations of power before they acquire it.

Civil society and labor must stand independently

Civil society must not become the auxiliary of any party. Its strength lies in insisting on standards that apply to government and opposition alike: disclosure, fairness, constitutional restraint and the public’s right to question those who govern.

Labor, too, must speak in its own voice. Workers’ interests should not disappear beneath diplomatic celebrations or partisan loyalties. The test of development should include what it means for a household’s security, a worker’s bargaining power and a young person’s prospects.

A democratic program can bring these forces together without requiring them to surrender their independence:

• Demand publication and scrutiny of consequential public agreements, with narrowly justified protections for genuinely sensitive information.
• Put wages, living costs and working conditions at the center of national debate.
• Insist on transparent public spending and institutions capable of investigating wrongdoing without political interference.
• Organize public meetings, lawful demonstrations and sustained community engagement.
• Prepare for elections through voter education, lawful monitoring and a program that reaches beyond inherited party loyalties.

The common ground should not be unquestioning loyalty to a replacement leader. It should be a commitment to rules that bind every leader.

Take back the country—for everyone

“Take back our country” must mean taking public institutions back into public service.

It must not mean replacing one circle of entitlement with another. It must not mean treating political opponents as enemies or any community as less Guyanese. And it must never become a license for intimidation or violence.

It should mean that citizens can question a president without being treated as disloyal; that workers can demand a fair share without being dismissed as obstacles; and that national sovereignty belongs to the people, not to the administration temporarily entrusted with defending it.

The American breakthroughs offer an example of political strongholds being breached. They are not a guarantee that the same will happen elsewhere.

Guyana’s task is its own: build the organization, establish the evidence, develop the program and earn the public’s confidence.

Let this be a call to democratic action—to the opposition, to civic organizations, to organized labor and to citizens unwilling to confuse government publicity with public consent.

Not to wait for Washington. Not to exchange one political savior for another. But to begin the patient, peaceful work of making power answer to the people.