592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

When is a political system ethically unacceptable?

---

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

Guyana Cannot Afford the Politics of Cynicism

There is a dangerous idea gaining ground in Guyana and across the world: that every politician is corrupt, every political party is the same, every election is stolen, every institution has failed, and all politics is inherently dirty. It is an idea that can sound convincing, particularly in a society where citizens have seen disappointment, division, broken promises, weak accountability, and the abuse of public trust. But it is also an idea that can become profoundly destructive.

When people conclude that nothing can be improved, that participation is pointless, and that democracy is merely a fraud, they do not strengthen the country. They surrender it—to the most cynical, the most unscrupulous, and often the most authoritarian voices among us.

Guyana, especially at this defining stage of its development, cannot afford that surrender.

We are no longer a country speaking only about potential. We are a resource-rich state receiving unprecedented revenues and attracting international attention. Decisions being made today about petroleum wealth, public spending, infrastructure, environmental protection, constitutional reform, education, health care, local government, procurement, and national unity will shape the lives of generations yet unborn.

That reality places a greater responsibility on every Guyanese citizen. It demands not blind loyalty to any party, leader, ethnicity, ideology, or slogan. It demands informed citizenship.

Yes, politicians can be corrupt. But corruption is not unique to politics. There are corrupt businesspeople, lawyers, contractors, public officials, religious leaders, professionals, and journalists. Corruption is a moral failure: a failure of ethics, responsibility, conscience, and shame.

We do not abandon medicine because there are unethical doctors. We do not reject education because some teachers fail their calling. We do not discard the justice system because some officials may abuse their authority. In the same way, we must not reject democratic politics because some politicians betray the public trust.

The appropriate response to political misconduct is not political withdrawal. It is stronger scrutiny, better laws, independent institutions, free media, active civil society, transparent public procurement, credible elections, and citizens who know both their rights and their responsibilities.

Guyana’s democracy is imperfect. Its institutions require constant strengthening. Its electoral history has left deep wounds, including the traumatic attempts to subvert the will of the electorate in 2020. Those events should never be minimized or forgotten. But their lesson cannot be that elections do not matter.

The lesson must be that credible elections matter even more; that electoral safeguards matter; that independent courts, observers, journalists, public servants, and vigilant citizens matter.

To say that all elections are fraudulent is to dismiss the struggles of those who defend the ballot. To say that all parties are identical is to give parties permission to avoid doing better. To say that every public institution is useless is to leave the public defenseless against the very forces that would capture those institutions for private or partisan ends.

Democracy is not sustained by cynicism. It is sustained by participation, vigilance, evidence, and civic courage.

The Danger of the “Savior”

A society that loses faith in democratic improvement can become vulnerable to a dangerous kind of politics: the politics of the savior.

This is the leader who claims that only he—or only his party—can rescue the nation; that criticism is disloyalty; that institutions are obstacles; that the media are enemies; that opponents are traitors; and that citizens should trade scrutiny for unquestioning obedience.

For a young, fast-developing, oil-producing democracy such as Guyana, this temptation must be resisted.

No leader should be above the law. No party should be treated as synonymous with the nation. No government should be beyond questioning. No citizen should feel compelled to choose between patriotism and accountability.

Guyana belongs to all Guyanese—not to a party, not to a government of the day, not to a small circle of political or economic elites, and not to those who seek to profit from division.

Patriotism is not silence in the face of wrongdoing. Patriotism is insisting that national wealth is managed honestly, that public contracts withstand scrutiny, that communities benefit fairly, that the environment is protected, that constitutional rights are respected, and that every citizen—regardless of race, religion, class, region, or political allegiance—can live with dignity and opportunity.

What Makes a System Ethically Unacceptable?

Every political system has flaws and every democracy can be improved. But not everything is morally equivalent. There are clear warning signs when a political system becomes ethically unacceptable.

A system becomes dangerous when it acts against human dignity and fundamental rights; when it seeks to control every area of citizens’ lives; when it reduces independent institutions to extensions of political power; when it weakens the courts, Parliament, the media, and oversight bodies; when it turns education into indoctrination; when it suppresses independent enterprise, civic organizations, trade unions, or community voices.

It becomes morally bankrupt when dissent is criminalized, when peaceful criticism is treated as treason, when propaganda replaces truth, and when lies become an accepted method of governing

It is equally dangerous when a government or party deliberately creates the impression that the country is under permanent siege—always facing enemies, saboteurs, traitors, foreign plots, or internal threats—in order to demand blind loyalty and silence legitimate questions.

And it is unacceptable when party loyalty is confused with love of country; when culture is reduced to ideology; when public institutions are made subordinate to partisan interests; or when a political organization behaves as though it stands above the Constitution, the law, and the people.

These are not abstract concerns. They are the warning signs citizens must recognize before democratic erosion becomes democratic collapse.

Civic Education Is a National Necessity

Guyana’s future will not be secured by oil revenues alone. Wealth without civic maturity can deepen inequality, fuel corruption, intensify political competition, and leave citizens alienated from decisions that affect their own lives.

A more resilient democracy requires civic and socio-political education at every level: in homes, schools, religious institutions, workplaces, community groups, trade unions, youth organizations, political parties, and the media.

Citizens must understand how government works, what the Constitution protects, what Parliament is supposed to do, how public funds should be managed, why local government matters, what freedom of expression requires, and how to distinguish fact from propaganda.

They must also learn that citizenship is not exhausted by voting every five years. It includes monitoring public policy, attending community meetings, reading budgets, questioning contracts, supporting investigative journalism, demanding access to information, engaging respectfully across political and ethnic lines, and holding every administration accountable by the same standard.

A politically literate citizen is harder to deceive, harder to manipulate, and less likely to exchange democratic rights for comforting slogans.

Guyana needs citizens who can distinguish between criticism and sabotage; between patriotism and party worship; between legitimate political disagreement and ethnic hostility; between development that benefits the people and development that merely enriches a connected few.

Our country is at a historic crossroads. The question is not whether Guyana will change—we already are changing. The question is what kind of country we will become.

Will we become a society where public wealth strengthens education, health care, infrastructure, productive enterprise, social protection, environmental stewardship, and equal opportunity? Or will we allow wealth to feed patronage, secrecy, waste, inequality, and political dependence?

The answer will depend not only on those who hold office. It will depend on whether Guyanese refuse the false comfort of political cynicism and embrace the harder, more necessary work of informed democratic citizenship.

Guyana does not need citizens who believe everything is rotten and therefore abandon the public square. It needs citizens prepared to defend truth, demand accountability, reject extremism, protect democratic institutions, and participate in building a republic worthy of its immense promise.

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 Azruddin Mohamed reflects (must resonate differently)

---

OPINION BY: GHK LALL October 2026

‘I could have been a dead man.’  “I coudda  been a contender.  I could’ve been somebody instead of a bum.’  The first speaker is Mr. Azruddin Mohamed, Guyana’s Opp Leader on his release from jail.  The second and third sentences are from blockbuster cinema, On the Waterfront, with Marlon Brando as the anguished character.  What relationship could the two have with each other?

Mr. Mohamed riding the crest of the WIN arc has been handed every opportunity to be somebody.  Already he is Guyana’s Leader of the Opposition, which ranks him in the Top 10 of Guyana’s citizenry.  It’s my estimation, and reasoned on this basis: if this country’s Pres Ali is the First Citizen and Guyana’s Prime Minister Phillips is the 1st Vice President (or 2nd Citizen), then Guyana’s Leader of the Opposition, Mohamed, cannot rank as its 21st or 22nd citizen.  Therefore, he has an obligation.  To his family.  To his supporters.  To the wider Guyana constituency.  To comport himself in a manner becoming and corresponding to his new title and all the responsibilities associated with it.

With Mr. Mohamed reminiscing rather ruefully that ‘I could have been a dead man’ and with real bullet holes as supporting evidence, he has to be more circumspect.  Intelligence gathering shouldn’t be at the top of his list of duties.  If he puts himself in harm’s way, and becomes a dead man, then what value has he bestowed on Guyana, what legacy does he leave for posterity?  The sooner that he learns that the role of Opp Leader is not a one-man show, or a family affair, or a highlight reel instalment, the better he serves his party and this country.  It is no accident that the job of Opp Leader is given such prominent mention in the Constitution of Guyana.  On realizing that, the first rays of wisdom should penetrate as to the magnitude of the role.  Cheddi Jagan held it.  Desmond Hoyte held it.  Robert Corbin did.  So did Bharrat Jagdeo. 

The role of Guyana’s Leader of the Opposition is neither errand boy nor newspaper boy.  It is of a man among men.  

In the present roiling, piercing environment, Mr. Mohamed would be an also ran, a runner-up, if he has failed to grasp how the PPP Govt and its agents wait in ambush to dislodge or destroy those who make all of them look emaciated and emasculated.  Start at the top and come down from there.  At every level, the faces of PPP powers and the PPP snipers are twisted in rage, and willing to manufacture and participate in any manner of outrage.  To level those they hold as enemies.  To destroy those, they hold as pests and parasites, fitting company in the crowd of undesirables.

Why should Azruddin Mohamed who more than anyone in this country not know how villainous, even murderous, the PPP can be?  It was done before, and a two-word blanket was found: national security.  ‘I could have been dead.’  Damn right, Mr. Mohamed.  He had better learn a few things quickly; or he will not have enough time to learn anything.  The PPP is not into play.  Not when the local power formula is under stress.  The seven-seat majority doesn’t make it comfortable.  It makes the PPP commanding and controlling.  Run this through the mind: a boxer has a seven-inch reach advantage, and yet he is fearful of going into the ring.  There was parliament.  Closed.  It took some wrestling by white friends to take a crowbar and dig it open.

Mr. Mohamed’s prison stay, his restricted circumstances, his sixth sense, should all make him into a better Opp Leader.  The PPP is watching.  The PPP isn’t letting up.  The PPP holds all the cards.  Azruddin Mohamed either grows into the role of Opp Leader, or he goes down.  He has a merciful and benevolent PPP Govt waiting to help him along the way.  I could have been dead.  It’s time that something sinks in his head.

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

Barima Commission Must Explain Its Two-Hour Broadcast Delay

---

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

The reported arrangement permitting recorded broadcasts on a two-hour delay is an improvement over an outright blackout. But it is not the same as open, immediate and unfiltered public scrutiny—particularly in an inquiry arising from a disaster that claimed lives, devastated families and raised serious questions about public safety, official oversight and accountability.

The Commission must now do more than say that recordings may be broadcast. It must explain, in clear and public terms, “what exactly may be restricted, who will make that decision, under what authority, and whether the public will ever be told what it was prevented from seeing or hearing“.

A Public Inquiry Cannot Be Public in Name Only

The public has a legitimate interest in seeing testimony as it unfolds—not merely after an unspecified review period, and not only to the extent permitted by the very body whose work is under scrutiny.

A two-hour delay creates a basic question: What is occurring during those two hours?

Is the delay simply intended to manage unforeseen legal issues, such as an objection concerning confidential information or material that could prejudice a criminal investigation? Or is it a mechanism through which content can be screened, removed, muted, delayed indefinitely or withheld from the public?

If no filtering is intended, the Commission should say so plainly.

If filtering is possible, the Commission must disclose the rules. The public should not be left to guess whether difficult testimony, embarrassing disclosures, criticisms of State agencies, or evidence adverse to influential officials could be interrupted or kept from immediate view.

The Questions the Commission Must Answer

The Commission should publicly answer the following questions before further hearings proceed under this arrangement:

1.“What is the legal basis for prohibiting real-time livestreaming of hearings that have been designated public?”

2.“Why was a two-hour delay selected?” What operational, legal or security concern requires a delay of that length rather than a shorter safeguard?

3.”Who has authority to order a restriction?” Is it the Chairman alone, the full Commission, Commission Counsel, the Secretary, or another person?

4.”What categories of information may be restricted?” Will restrictions apply only to legally protected material—such as personal data, security-sensitive evidence, privileged communications or evidence likely to prejudice criminal proceedings?

5.”Can material be withheld because it is politically embarrassing, critical of government agencies, damaging to reputations, or uncomfortable for senior officials?” The answer must be an unequivocal no.

6.”Will the Commission issue a public notice whenever a broadcast is paused, muted, edited, delayed beyond two hours or withheld?”

7.”Will the public be told why a restriction was imposed, who ordered it, and what legal authority was relied upon?”

8.”Will affected media houses be allowed to challenge a restriction immediately?” If so, what is the review process?

9.”Will every restricted portion be preserved in the official record?” There must be no gap in the evidentiary record because a segment was withheld from broadcast.

10.”Will censored or delayed material be released once the reason for restriction no longer exists?” If not, why not?

11.“Will full transcripts, exhibits, rulings and daily hearing recordings be published online promptly and free of charge?”

12.”How will families in Region One and other affected communities receive timely access to the proceedings if they lack the means to travel to Georgetown or maintain reliable internet access?”

13.“Has the Commission consulted bereaved families, survivors, media organizations and civil-society groups on the access arrangements?” If not, why not?

14.”Will the Commission publish a written broadcasting protocol setting out its rules before it begins exercising discretionary control over public access?”

These are not hostile questions. They are the minimum questions required where a public body exercises control over information arising from a national tragedy.

No Blank Cheque for Secrecy

There can be legitimate reasons to temporarily withhold a narrow portion of evidence. Personal information may require protection. Some evidence may touch on ongoing criminal inquiries. In rare cases, there may be a genuine security or legal basis to pause transmission.

But such exceptions must remain exactly that: exceptions.

They cannot become a broad and undefined license to manage the public narrative of the inquiry. A Commission of Inquiry is not a private arbitration. It is a public mechanism intended to establish facts, test responsibility and restore confidence where public trust has been shaken.

The more serious the tragedy, the stronger the obligation of transparency.

A blanket ban on real-time coverage, accompanied by a vague power to impose further restrictions, invites public suspicion—even if the Commission’s intentions are proper. Confidence cannot rest on assurances alone. It requires rules, reasons, records and accountability.

What Transparency Requires

The Commission should immediately adopt and publish a clear access protocol built on the following principles:

Livestreaming should be the default, with only narrowly tailored and legally justified interruptions.

Any restriction must be announced on the record at the time it is imposed.

Reasons must be stated publicly, unless even the explanation would compromise a lawful protected interest.

The scope and duration of each restriction must be limited, to what is strictly necessary.

No portion of testimony should be silently removed or altered.

A complete official record must be preserved,of all testimony, objections, rulings, exhibits and restrictions.

A register of withheld or delayed material should be published, identifying the date, duration, reason and authority for each intervention.

Delayed or restricted material should be released promptly, when the basis for withholding it ends.

Families and residents of affected riverine communities must be provided meaningful access, including public viewing locations, timely recordings, transcripts and reliable official updates.

The Central Issue

The issue is not whether a Commission may ever protect sensitive evidence. It may have that responsibility in limited circumstances.

The issue is whether the Commission will exercise that responsibility transparently—or whether it will expect the public to accept unexplained restrictions in a matter involving death, grief, public transport safety and possible institutional failures.

The families of those lost in the MV Barima tragedy deserve more than delayed access. They deserve an inquiry that is visibly independent, demonstrably fair and unquestionably open.

The public deserves to know: What is being delayed, who decides, what can be withheld, and why?

Until those questions are answered in writing, the two-hour broadcast arrangement remains not a transparency measure, but a qualified and potentially controllable form of public access.

 

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 Georgetown’s Unexplained Snub of Israel Must End

---

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar OCTOBER 2026

Guyana’s failure to receive Israel’s non-resident ambassador, Matty Cohen, has become too conspicuous to be dismissed as a routine diplomatic delay. While Mr Cohen has already presented credentials in Jamaica, Barbados, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago, Georgetown has yet to explain why it has not set a date for him to be formally accredited to Guyana.

The Government of Guyana must stop treating the accreditation of Israel’s non-resident ambassador as a matter too inconvenient to explain.

Israel’s Ambassador Matty Cohen has reportedly presented his credentials to Jamaica, Barbados, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. Yet in Guyana—his country’s diplomatic relations have  not  been formalized with Georgetown nor the CARICOM Secretariat hosted in Guyana, and the Government boasts of its leadership role in regional affairs—there has been no public explanation for why he has not been invited to present credentials to President Irfaan Ali. This silence is unacceptable.

The acceptance of credentials does not amount to an endorsement of every action of the Government of Israel. It does not prevent Guyana from condemning civilian deaths, breaches of international humanitarian law, or acts that violate the U.N. Charter. Guyana can maintain its stated position on Palestine, insist on a negotiated two-state solution, and speak without fear against injustices wherever they occur.

But Guyana cannot simultaneously claim to be a serious international actor, a defender of dialogue and a champion of multilateralism while refusing—or appearing to refuse—to complete a basic diplomatic process with a country with which it has formal ties.

The Government owes the nation direct answers. Has Ambassador Cohen formally requested an appointment to present credentials? Has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs delayed or rejected that request? Has President Ali’s Office been advised not to receive him? Is the delay administrative, political, ideological, or tied to Guyana’s voting posture at the United Nations?

Minister of Foreign Affairs Hugh Todd and President Irfaan Ali must disclose why.

A Cost to Guyana’s Development

The unexplained diplomatic freeze is not merely an issue of etiquette. It may deny Guyana access to knowledge, technology, investment contacts and practical partnerships that could support the country’s urgent development needs.

Guyana has placed agriculture at the center of its diversification agenda. It wants to cut CARICOM’s food-import bill, expand food production, strengthen food security, modernize farming and establish itself as a regional food producer. Those ambitions require more than speeches, acreage announcements and occasional machinery distributions. They require technology, technical expertise, research, training, logistics and value-added production.

Israel has experience that Guyana should not ignore.

Despite operating in a dry and water-constrained environment, Israel has built globally recognized capacity in:

♦ Precision agriculture that uses sensors, satellite information, soil data and automated equipment to improve yields while reducing waste.

♦ Drip irrigation and fertigation systems that deliver water and nutrients directly to plant roots, conserving water and improving farm efficiency.

♦ Water recycling and reuse, including systems for treating wastewater for agriculture and industry.

♦ Desalination, water-storage management, leakage reduction and smart monitoring of water distribution systems.

♦ Greenhouse farming, shade-house technology, hydroponics and controlled-environment agriculture that allow more reliable crop production.

♦ Seed development, crop protection, pest-control systems and research suited to difficult climatic conditions.

♦ Dairy and livestock management, including breeding, feed systems, herd health monitoring and higher output per animal.

♦ Post-harvest management, cold storage, packaging, grading, processing and supply-chain systems that reduce spoilage.

♦  Agricultural research, extension services and farmer training designed to move innovations from laboratories into actual farms.

♦ Food-processing technology, quality assurance, export certification and traceability systems that can help producers reach higher-value markets.

Guyana does not need to copy Israel’s model. Guyana has abundant water, fertile lands and a different climate. But that is precisely why a sensible partnership could be valuable. Guyana’s comparative advantages—land, rainfall, rivers, agricultural potential and access to Caribbean markets—can be strengthened by technology that makes production more efficient, climate-resilient, market-ready and profitable.

A country with Guyana’s natural assets should be asking how to produce more food with better planning, less waste, reliable irrigation, stronger storage, higher quality, and viable export chains. It should not be allowing diplomatic uncertainty to cut off potentially useful avenues of cooperation.

Agriculture Requires More Than Land

The repeated mistake in Guyana’s development planning is the assumption that acreage alone equals agricultural transformation. It does not.

Farmers need all-weather farm-to-market roads, drainage and irrigation systems, affordable financing, dependable energy, reliable inputs, technical support, storage, processing facilities, quality control and buyers. They need protection from flood, drought, pests, price instability and post-harvest losses.

Israeli technical cooperation could assist Guyana in practical areas such as:

♦ Climate-smart drainage and irrigation for rice, vegetables, fruits and other crops.

♦ Efficient irrigation in intermediate savannahs and hinterland farming areas where access to water can be seasonal or costly.

♦ Small-scale irrigation packages and solar-powered pumping systems for family farmers and community farms.

♦ Protected agriculture for high-value crops, including peppers, tomatoes, leafy vegetables, herbs and berries.

♦ Improved livestock systems, milk production, feed planning and veterinary monitoring.

♦ Cold-chain and pack-house systems to preserve produce before shipment to local, regional and international markets.

♦ -processing support for juices, sauces, spices, dried fruits, cassava products, dairy products, packaged vegetables and other value-added goods.

♦  Digital tools that give farmers weather information, crop guidance, market prices and early warnings of pest or disease outbreaks.

♦ Training partnerships involving Guyanese farmers, technicians, agricultural students, the Guyana School of Agriculture, the University of Guyana and relevant public agencies.

Guyana must not reduce its international partnerships to oil, roads, loans and ceremonial visits. The country needs results-oriented cooperation that strengthens domestic productive capacity. Agriculture, agro-processing, water security and rural employment are not side issues. They are central to whether Guyana can build an economy that survives and prospers beyond petroleum.

 Diplomatic Recognition Is Not Surrender

Some may argue that Israel’s military conduct in Gaza makes normal diplomatic engagement impossible. That argument misunderstands diplomacy.

Guyana should remain free to condemn what it considers violations of international law. It should continue to support the protection of civilians, humanitarian access, accountability for atrocities and a just peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike. It should do so consistently, including where powerful states are involved.

But refusing to receive an ambassador is not a substitute for a coherent foreign policy. Nor does it advance Guyana’s interests.

Diplomatic engagement creates a formal channel for Guyana to make its concerns known. It allows the Government to pursue agricultural, technological, educational and investment cooperation while maintaining its independence on matters of war, peace and international law.

No responsible government should make Guyanese farmers, consumers, young people, businesses and public institutions pay the price for unexplained political hesitation.

The Questions Government Must Answer

President Ali and Minister Todd should immediately address the following:

1.Has Ambassador Matty Cohen formally sought permission to present credentials in Georgetown

2.If so, when was the request made, and what response did Guyana provide?

3.Has Guyana delayed, declined or placed conditions on his accreditation?

4.If there is a delay, what specific policy, legal, administrative or diplomatic reason justifies it?

5.Does Guyana intend to receive Israel’s ambassador before the end of 2026

6.Has the failure to accredit him affected Israel’s engagement with Guyana or the wider CARICOM Community?

7.What steps has Guyana taken to explore cooperation with Israel on agriculture, water management, agro-processing, climate adaptation, technology and training?

These are reasonable questions. They require clear answers, not private briefings, evasive statements or partisan spin.

Guyana cannot declare itself the food basket of the Caribbean while neglecting every available avenue for agricultural modernization. It cannot demand a greater voice in global affairs while leaving basic diplomatic matters unresolved. And it cannot champion national development while permitting opaque political calculations to block partnerships that may benefit the Guyanese people.

The Government must receive Ambassador Cohen or explain, in full, why it will not. That is the minimum standard of transparency and seriousness Guyanese citizens should expect.