A Warning, Not a Celebration

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 A Warning, Not a Celebration

---

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

Bharrat Jagdeo’s declaration that the PPP and PNC could face “extinction” unless they transcend racial division and old-style binary politics may sound, at first hearing, like a statesmanlike appeal for national healing. Guyanese should welcome any genuine rejection of ethnic mobilization, partisan hostility and the politics of permanent conflict.

But noble language about “working together” cannot substitute for public disclosure, constitutional safeguards and independent oversight.

The central question is not whether Guyana needs less racial division. It unquestionably does. Nor is it whether political co-operation can help the country govern more effectively. It can. The question is: what form of co-operation is being contemplated, who will negotiate it, what powers will be traded, what institutions will remain independent, and who will protect citizens if the two historically dominant parties close ranks against the public interest?

Those questions cannot be dismissed as cynicism. They arise precisely because Guyana’s political history has taught citizens to be cautious when powerful actors invoke national unity without first defining the terms.

The Missing Framework

Jagdeo’s remarks recalled earlier engagement between the PPP and Robert Corbin’s PNC, including discussions that reportedly collapsed amid internal accusations that Corbin was “selling out.” Whether those accusations were fair is one issue. But the episode also demonstrates the political reality that any engagement between the two major parties will immediately invite concern about secret agreements, elite bargains and the dilution of democratic competition.

If the PPP and PNC are now contemplating closer co-operation, Guyana needs a framework before it needs speeches.

That framework must answer basic questions:

– Is the proposal for issue-by-issue parliamentary collaboration, constitutional reform, a formal coalition, a government of national unity, or executive power-sharing?

– Would agreements be published before they are implemented?

– Would civil society, labor, business groups, Indigenous organizations, religious bodies, youth groups, professional associations and the diaspora be consulted?

– What protection would exist for dissenting parliamentarians, smaller parties, journalists, watchdog bodies and ordinary citizens?

– Would an arrangement strengthen the National Assembly’s scrutiny of the Executive—or further weaken it?

– What would prevent co-operation from becoming a pact to protect political elites from investigation, criticism or electoral challenge?

Without transparent answers, “co-operation” can become a pleasant word for concentration of power.

Who Checks a Unified Political Establishment?

The PPP commands overwhelming political and institutional advantage. Any arrangement in which it holds approximately 55% of the governing political weight while the PNC commands only about 18% cannot be credibly presented as an equal partnership.

It would be a relationship in which the junior participant risks being absorbed, neutralized or used to legitimize decisions already made by the dominant party.

Guyana must therefore confront a difficult but necessary question: if the PPP and PNC enter a far-reaching governing arrangement, who becomes the effective opposition?

A democracy requires more than elections. It requires people and institutions with the authority, courage and capacity to question those in power. It requires robust parliamentary scrutiny, an independent press, active civil society, functioning courts, autonomous constitutional bodies and political alternatives capable of contesting for office.

When the main governing party and the  opposition party become partners, the danger is not merely reduced debate. The danger is that national politics becomes an agreement among elites while citizens are left outside the room.

There would be fewer incentives to expose corruption, challenge questionable contracts, scrutinize oil revenues, investigate procurement decisions, confront abuses of state resources or demand accountability for failed policies. The opposition’s most fundamental democratic role—to hold the government accountable—could be compromised at precisely the moment when Guyana’s petroleum wealth requires unprecedented vigilance.

The Road to a One-Party State

Guyana has already witnessed opposition figures cross the floor to join the PPP. Such crossings may be defended as individual political choices, but their cumulative effect matters. When elected representatives leave the opposition and join the governing side, especially in a political environment where the State controls vast resources, citizens are entitled to ask whether principle, pressure, political survival or inducement drove those decisions.

The risk becomes more serious if a weakened PNC enters an arrangement with the PPP while its parliamentary ranks continue to fragment.

With the right incentives—ministerial appointments, state boards, contracts, diplomatic postings, access to resources, promises of political protection or other forms of patronage—what would prevent further defections? What prevents the remaining PNC parliamentarians from becoming politically isolated, individually targeted or gradually drawn into the governing apparatus?

The concern is not imaginary. It is rooted in the established regional and international pattern by which dominant parties consolidate authority: weaken the opposition, absorb its leaders, reward loyalty, marginalize critics and present the resulting political imbalance as national consensus.

A democracy without a credible opposition may still conduct elections. It is not, however, a healthy democracy.

Constitutional Reform Must Not Become Constitutional Manipulation

There is an additional concern that cannot be ignored: constitutional reform.

Guyana’s Constitution should not be treated as untouchable. It contains unresolved questions about governance, inclusion, rights, accountability, electoral representation and the relationship between citizens and the State. Serious constitutional reform may be necessary.

But constitutional reform must never become a vehicle for political self-preservation.

Citizens have every right to be alert to the possibility that a PPP-PNC accommodation could create the parliamentary numbers, political climate or elite consensus needed to amend presidential term-limit provisions or otherwise reopen the path for former leaders to seek a third presidential term.

Whether such an objective is currently under discussion is not the point. The point is that the concentration of political power creates the opportunity for it.

A weakened or compromised opposition may no longer be able to stop self-serving amendments. A legislature dominated by parties operating under a broad agreement may become less likely to resist changes that serve political leaders rather than the public. And by the time citizens understand the full implications, the legal architecture may already have been altered.

No constitutional change involving presidential eligibility, term limits, electoral rules, political financing, judicial independence, parliamentary oversight or executive authority should proceed through closed-door party bargains. Such changes must require full public consultation, publication of proposals, independent expert review, parliamentary debate and, where appropriate, approval through a referendum.

Unity Cannot Mean Elite Immunity

Jagdeo is correct on one central point: Guyana cannot afford to remain trapped forever in the traumas, stereotypes and political suspicions inherited from the 1960 s.

But unity cannot mean asking citizens to forget history while the political class retains all the power. It cannot mean that the PPP and PNC agree to manage the country together while avoiding serious examination of their respective records.

Both parties have faced long-standing accusations of placing party paramountcy over national priorities. Both have been associated, at different periods, with patronage, opaque decision-making, ethnic mobilization, institutional distrust and the use of political power to advance partisan interests.

The answer to this history is not to merge the two systems of political control. It is to build institutions strong enough to restrain both of them.

Guyana does not need a bipartisan arrangement that shields political leaders from scrutiny. It needs:

– A genuinely independent Parliament with empowered committees and meaningful opposition oversight.

– Full transparency in oil, mining, infrastructure, procurement and public spending.

– Strong conflict-of-interest laws, asset declarations and enforcement against illicit enrichment.

– An independent judiciary and constitutional commissions insulated from political interference.

– Campaign-finance laws that expose who funds political parties and candidates.

– Protection for whistleblowers, journalists, civic activists and public servants who expose wrongdoing.

– Fair access to state media and safeguards against the use of public resources for party political advantage.

– Electoral reforms that ensure voters can choose among credible alternatives rather than being forced into a political duopoly.

The PNC’s Particular Dilemma

Jagdeo’s remarks place the PNC at a crossroads. The party must decide whether it will renew itself as a modern, credible and independent opposition—or allow itself to be drawn into a relationship where it possesses little leverage and risks losing its identity.

The PNC cannot simply discard “excess baggage” by entering an accommodation with the PPP. It must first confront its own internal governance, public credibility, leadership culture, electoral strategy and relationship with the smaller parties and constituencies that have formed part of the wider opposition space.

If it enters a governing compact from a position of weakness, it may gain short-term access but lose its long-term purpose. Its supporters may conclude that their votes no longer provide a meaningful check on power. Its leaders may become administrators within a PPP-dominated system rather than representatives of an independent political alternative.

That would not advance democracy. It would deepen public cynicism.

Cooperation Must Be Limited and Public

There is room for responsible co-operation between the PPP and PNC. They should be able to work together on national security, disaster preparedness, border defense, infrastructure standards, racial harmony, constitutional rights, education, healthcare and long-term management of petroleum revenues.

But such co-operation should be structured around specific national objectives—not around opaque political settlements.

A responsible model would include publicly negotiated, time-limited agreements on clearly identified issues. Every agreement should contain measurable objectives, implementation deadlines, reporting duties and independent review. It should preserve the opposition’s right to criticize, investigate, vote against the government and present an alternative program to the electorate.

Co-operation on an anti-corruption law, for example, is legitimate and necessary. Co-operation that neutralizes the opposition’s ability to investigate corruption is not.

There is a decisive difference between national consensus and political cartelization.

Citizens Must Remain Alert

The future of Guyana cannot be entrusted solely to the PPP and PNC, however historic or powerful they may be. The country’s future belongs to its citizens: Indo-Guyanese, Afro-Guyanese, Indigenous peoples, mixed-race Guyanese and every other community; those at home and abroad; workers, farmers, entrepreneurs, professionals, young people and pensioners.

The emergence of a younger electorate that thinks beyond inherited racial loyalties should be encouraged. But young Guyanese must not be offered a false choice between racial division and elite political unity.

They deserve something better: pluralism, accountability, transparent government, genuine inclusion and leaders who understand that national development is not measured only by roads, buildings and oil revenues. It is also measured by whether citizens retain the power to question, organize, dissent and replace those who govern them.

Guyana must reject racial politics. It must also reject unaccountable political consolidation. The country needs co-operation where it serves the people—and opposition where it protects them.