A Facebook Feed Is Not a Legislative Agenda

  A Facebook Feed Is Not a Legislative Agenda

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar November 2026

That is the uncomfortable impression left by the account of the November 11 sitting outlined in a Credible Sources social media post. It describes government legislation, financial reports, ministerial questions and motions concerning the Public Accounts Committee. What it does not identify is a substantial opposition program of new bills or policy motions addressing the grievances opposition politicians so energetically advertise.

That distinction matters. Citizens elect representatives, not a permanent commentary panel.

A qualification is necessary: the account supplied is not, by itself, proof that no other opposition business has been submitted, is awaiting consideration or will appear on a supplementary Order Paper. Nor does one sitting establish the entire record of an opposition. But the business described raises a legitimate and serious question: where is the parliamentary program behind the public performance?

Questions Are a Beginning, Not a Program

Let us dispense with an easy but mistaken argument. Parliamentary questions are not worthless. Questions about domestic violence, police conduct, housing pressures, education and public expenditure concern matters that deserve answers. Parliament’s own explanation of its procedures recognizes questions as instruments for obtaining information and seeking official action, alongside committee scrutiny and private members’ business.

Likewise, seeking to resume unfinished Public Accounts Committee work is not merely administrative housekeeping. Scrutiny of public expenditure is part of Parliament’s accountability function. It should not be dismissed simply because it lacks the drama of a political confrontation.

The indictment, therefore, is not that opposition members are asking questions or pursuing committee work.

It is whether they are treating those activities as the ceiling of their ambition.

Where questions expose a failure, what remedy follows? Where a minister’s answer reveals a gap in policy, where is the proposed correction? Where an opposition identifies an injustice, what institutional action does it pursue beyond announcing that injustice to its followers?

A question can begin the work of representation. It cannot be the whole program.

Where Is the Alternative?

Guyana’s parliamentary procedures provide avenues for members to introduce bills and propose motions, subject to the Constitution and Standing Orders. Parliament also expressly recognizes private members’ bills and motions as categories of parliamentary business. These are not imaginary tools that opposition politicians must wait to acquire upon entering government.

No reasonable citizen should expect an opposition to win every vote. Nor should legislative productivity be measured by a pile of hastily drafted bills submitted merely for publicity.

But citizens are entitled to expect a coherent alternative: proposals that identify what should change, explain how it should change and place that argument before the institution empowered to act.

♦On housing, what rules would the opposition change?

♦On domestic violence, what protections would it strengthen?

♦On public spending, what safeguards would it propose?

♦On the benefits of former presidents, what principles of cost, transparency and fairness would it ask Parliament to endorse?

Those are not demands for political theatre. They are demands for political work.

An opposition that says the government is failing must do more than describe the failure. It must demonstrate that it has thought seriously about governing differently.

The Politics of the Feed

Social media has become the most convenient place to look busy without submitting to the discipline of a detailed proposal.

A broadcast can condemn everything and specify almost nothing. A parliamentary proposal requires choices: what exactly should happen, who should be responsible, what the limits should be and how the remedy would operate.

That is the difference between cultivating an audience and representing a constituency.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using Facebook to explain public affairs or mobilize citizens. The failure comes when communication becomes a substitute for the work it is supposed to communicate.

A politician should be able to point constituents towards a proposal, an amendment, a committee finding, a sustained demand for implementation—not simply towards yesterday’s video.

The test is representation, not reach.

An impressive feed is not evidence of an impressive parliamentary program. Outrage is not an amendment. A following is not a governing philosophy.

A Government in Waiting Must Show Its Work

The opposition need not hold executive office to demonstrate preparation for it. It can show whether it understands institutions, can formulate workable remedies and will sustain an issue after the cameras move elsewhere.

That is why the apparent imbalance in the agenda described deserves scrutiny. If opposition parties believe citizens face urgent and widespread problems, their parliamentary work should reflect that urgency—not only through questions, but through a visible, organized effort to advance solutions.

And if proposals have been submitted but are being delayed or excluded, the opposition should publish them, identify the procedural obstacle and explain the steps it has taken to secure consideration. That would turn a complaint about obstruction into a record citizens can examine.

What is not acceptable is asking the electorate to confuse visibility with effectiveness.

On the showing described, the claim to be a credible government in waiting is not established. It is being asserted more forcefully than it is being demonstrated.

Citizens do not owe politicians a certificate of readiness because they speak loudly against those in office. Readiness must be earned through preparation, substance and sustained institutional work.Until that work becomes visible, the verdict is deservedly harsh: an opposition that dominates the feed but cannot demonstrate a serious parliamentary alternative is not yet making the case to govern.

It is making content.