BOOK LAUNCH. REMINDER ♦ SATURDAY JULY 18 2026:

/0 Comments/in /by

BOOK LAUNCH. REMINDER ♦ SATURDAY JULY 18 2026

Enter the Political Kingdom- By   Moses Bhagwan 

On Saturday, July 18, 2026, readers, thinkers, and admirers of Guyanese political history will gather at Global Christian Ministries in Richmond Hill, New York, for the launch of Moses Bhagwan’s Enter the Political Kingdom: A Guyanese Political Memoir. More than a book presentation, this event marks the arrival of a compelling public voice whose life, reflections, and political memory have long carried the weight of experience, conviction, and controversy.

Bhagwan is not merely the author of a memoir; he is a witness to, and participant in, the turbulent political currents that have shaped Guyana’s modern history.

This is the kind of launch where people may come for the book, but stay for the writer. Bhagwan’s story, voice, and perspective invite deeper questions about power, struggle, memory, and the enduring meaning of political engagement in Guyana and the wider diaspora. With introductions by distinguished scholars and commentators, and a programme that includes readings, remarks, and audience interaction, the evening promises both intellectual substance and human drama. It is, in every sense, a rare occasion — one that places the author, his ideas, and his lived history squarely at the center of public attention.

Super El Niño threatens to unleash one of the most destructive Seasons

/0 Comments/in , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN ◊ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM ◊ FOR GUYANA

Super El Niño threatens to unleash one of the most destructive Seasons

As a Super El Niño threatens to unleash one of the most destructive seasons in recent memory, a provocative scientific paper asks a difficult question: if we can’t stop the planet from warming fast enough, should we consider temporarily dimming the sun to blunt the worst impacts?

A team at Scripps Institution of Oceanography used climate models — and lessons from the 2019–20 Australian “Black Summer” fires — to test whether marine cloud brightening, a form of solar geoengineering, could tamp down a powerful El Niño. The idea is simple in concept and fiendishly complex in execution: spray sea-salt aerosols into low ocean clouds so they reflect more sunlight, cool the tropical Pacific, and reduce the spike in global temperatures that a Super El Niño would bring.

Their models show it might work — at least partially. Targeted cloud brightening applied early could shave roughly 40 percent off peak El Niño warming in the simulations. That could translate into fewer heatwaves, smaller wildfires, reduced crop failures, and less pressure on overstretched health and emergency systems. For regions like the Caribbean and Guyana, where livelihoods depend on stable rainy seasons, fisheries and agriculture, and where disasters quickly overwhelm limited response capacity, any tool that lowers immediate harm is tempting.

But temptation is not policy. The paper is a proof of concept, not a policy prescription — and for good reason. The gulf between a model result and a safe, effective technology is vast. Engineers currently lack sprayers capable of delivering the right quantity and size of particles over the required ocean areas. Models still struggle to predict the cascading, remote effects of changing cloud reflectivity on global rainfall patterns. And there is real risk of overcorrection: a “too strong” intervention could trigger a mega La Niña with its own catalogue of floods, storms and agricultural disruption.

Beyond technical uncertainty lie profound ethical and geopolitical questions. Who decides to dim the sun for months or years? A handful of wealthy states, private funders, or an international process that includes the most vulnerable voices? The distributional stakes are enormous: a change that reduces heat in one place might reduce rain in another, hitting small island states, farmers, or urban poor who already carry the heaviest climate burdens. Then there’s the moral hazard: the more credible a techno-fix becomes, the more it risks blunting the political urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions — the only durable solution to the climate crisis.

So what should policymakers, civil society and the public in the Caribbean and Guyana take from this study? First: don’t be distracted. Geoengineering research must be watched, regulated and debated transparently, but it is not a substitute for rapid emissions cuts or for costly, necessary adaptation. Second: demand a voice. Any international discussion of geoengineering governance must include the countries most at risk. We cannot allow decisions about global sunlight to be taken behind closed doors by institutions or corporations with little stake in our futures. Third: invest in readiness. Whether or not marine cloud brightening ever becomes viable, this decade will bring some of the highest-stakes weather in living memory. Strengthening water management, resilient agriculture, early-warning systems and health infrastructure is non-negotiable.

Finally, treat this science as what it is: an alarm bell. The study underlines a brutal truth — climate change is not a gradual nuisance; it is pushing natural systems like El Niño into new, more dangerous regimes. If a high-tech intervention is even being discussed as a possible emergency tool, that is evidence of failure, not ingenuity. Our response should be proportionate: accelerate deep emissions cuts, fund adaptation where lives and livelihoods hang in the balance, and build inclusive, binding governance for any research into planetary-scale interventions.

We cannot let the lure of a quick technical fix derail our political will. The choice before us is stark: commit to the long, difficult work of decarbonisation and resilience now, or gamble with untested manipulations of the very system that sustains life on Earth.

THE 592 GUARDIAN — EDITORIAL BOARD, JULY 2026

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE.  Transparency International Guyana calls for independent investigation into President Ali’s Long Creek livestock farm.

/0 Comments/in , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE.   

Transparency International Guyana calls for independent investigation into President Ali’s Long Creek livestock farm

Georgetown, Guyana — July 2026  — Transparency International Guyana (TI Guyana) is alarmed by recent reports indicating that President Mohamed Irfaan Ali owns a substantial livestock farm at Long Creek. These revelations raise urgent and serious questions about conflicts of interest, misuse of public resources, and violations of the Public Integrity Act.

TI Guyana has long stood as Guyana’s leading anti-corruption watchdog, committed to the principles of transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. The allegations surrounding the Long Creek facility risk further eroding global confidence in Guyana’s governance and investment climate. If left unaddressed, these matters will have long-term negative consequences for the nation’s reputation as a stable, transparent, and attractive investment destination.

TI Guyana calls for an immediate, fair, and impartial investigation that addresses the following core pillars:

1.Conflict of interest and transparency

– Determine whether the President’s ownership of the Long Creek farm creates a conflict with official duties.

– Establish whether the ownership was disclosed in accordance with applicable law and public sector transparency standards.

2.Use of state resources and personal enrichment

– Investigate any use of state property, personnel, funds, or privileges that may have benefited the farm or the President personally.

– Identify any instances where state resources were diverted for private gain.

3.Compliance with the Public Integrity Act

– Assess whether actions related to the farm violated the Public Integrity Act or other relevant statutes and codes of conduct.

– Recommend corrective or disciplinary measures where breaches are found.

4.Abuse of state privileges and official duties

– Examine any evidence of preferential treatment, regulatory leniency, or other advantages afforded to the farm because of the President’s position.

– Evaluate whether official duties were performed in a manner that improperly advantaged private interests.

To ensure impartiality and to remove any perception of bias, TI Guyana invites Transparency International member chapters and independent experts from other jurisdictions to lead and conduct the investigation. TI Guyana will serve strictly in a consultative and facilitative capacity, providing local context and logistical support while ceding investigative independence to external experts.

TI Guyana reiterates its commitment to:

– The orderly, transparent, and structured development of Guyana.

– The rule of law, public accountability, and equal application of ethics standards for all public officials.

– Protecting Guyana’s reputation as a country that respects governance norms and fosters investor confidence.

The Government of Guyana must address these allegations with alacrity. Continued obfuscation or attempts to gaslight the public will only deepen domestic mistrust and further damage Guyana’s international standing. The evidence published to date is serious and demands full, transparent scrutiny.

About Transparency International Guyana

Transparency International Guyana is an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to preventing corruption, promoting transparency, and strengthening public integrity in Guyana. We advocate for accountable governance and provide support for investigations that advance the public interest.

Transparency International Guyana

Media contact: THE 592 GUARDIAN.                                                                                                 Website: 592guardian.com

 

 

 

 

Ancestors of the RiverA Nation Built From Below

/0 Comments/in /by

BOOK REVIEW

Ancestors of the River ♦ BY Moses Bhagwan.          A Nation Built From Below

The 592 Guardian | Books & Culture

Moses Bhagwan’s Ancestors of the River  is more than a family chronicle.

It is a restoration project — an effort to recover the dignity, labour and intelligence of ordinary Guyanese families whose lives helped shape this country long before history began to flatter the powerful.

The book tells of four families struggling through the hard economic conditions of early colonial British Guiana — clearing land, planting crops, raising poultry, fishing — in order to survive with a measure of independence.  That is already a compelling premise. But the deeper value of the work lies in what it argues about nation-building from below. These were not passive rural survivors. They were families who used education, discipline and faith to push their children into teaching, preaching, medicine, law and engineering.

The professional Guyanese middle class did not arrive by colonial grace. It was carved out by people who had nothing but purpose and one another.

That theme gives Ancestors of the River a social meaning well beyond the personal. It reminds us that colonial society was not only a system of extraction and control. It was also a place where Black and Indian working families, through sacrifice and collective purpose, converted hardship into mobility and self-respect. The detail Bhagwan offers of two patriarchs who were riding preachers — men who moved district to district teaching Hindi — adds an especially valuable cultural layer. Here is the transmission of language, religion and identity operating entirely outside the formal institutions of the colonial state: a quiet, determined act of civilisational preservation.

Bhagwan’s strength is that he writes with memory rather than abstraction. He is not observing history from a safe distance. He is part of the history he is recounting, and that insider position gives the narrative its honesty, its warmth and its authority. The book reads as both family testimony and social record simultaneously, and the combination is rare.

There is also something notably humane about the way the story is presented. The blurb emphasises family cooperation, mutual support, humour, fondness, passion and pathos — and that matters. Too many accounts of colonial life reduce people to victims, statistics or stereotypes. Ancestors of the River insists on something more truthful: that colonial peoples were complex, resourceful and fully human, capable of building institutions, preserving culture and sustaining one another even under conditions designed to break them.

If there is a limitation, it may be that the book’s sweep — family, plantation society, culture, religion and the first stirrings of political consciousness — is so broad that the narrative must work hard to avoid becoming episodic. But that is a reasonable risk for a work of this historical ambition, and the breadth may be precisely its appeal, particularly for readers in Guyana and the diaspora who are searching for a story that reflects not only private memory but a shared social inheritance.

In the end, Ancestors of the River is a book of remembrance, but not nostalgia alone. It looks backward in order to recover the meanings of labour, education, faith and family cohesion in the making of modern Guyana — and by recovering them, it makes an implicit demand on the present. Guyana’s public conversation about nationhood is still too often dominated by elites, by party machines, by the comprador class that inherited the colonial architecture and called it independence. This book is a corrective. The real foundations of this country were laid by humble people whose names history has not always treated with fairness.

Moses Bhagwan has treated them with fairness. That is no small thing.

Ancestors of the River is available through Amazon-https://a.co/d/07cOe9JT

 

The 592 Guardian is an independent accountability journalism outlet covering Guyanese governance, politics and extractive industry.

THE GUIANA SHIELD IS BEING REORGANIZED

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

 The 592 GUARDIAN♦EDITORIAL♦ENVIORMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The Guiana Shield Is Being Reorganised — And Guyana Is Watching From the Sidelines    What is happening in Venezuela’s mining belt is not Venezuela’s problem alone– JUNE 2026

The arrest of Nicolás Maduro by American special forces in January 2026 was treated in Guyana largely as a geopolitical curiosity — the end of a neighbourhood nuisance, perhaps even a quiet relief given the years of Essequibo belligerence his government sponsored. That reading was dangerously shallow. What has unfolded since in Venezuela’s Bolívar state is not the tidying up of a failed state. It is the reorganisation of the Guiana Shield — the same ancient geological formation that underlies Guyana’s gold and uranium frontier — under American strategic and commercial direction. Guyana is not a spectator to this process. It is a participant whether it chooses to be or not.

 On June 8th, army helicopters swept into Las Claritas, Venezuela’s ground zero for illegal gold mining in Bolívar state. Thousands of freelance prospectors fled. Days later, the United States launched an air strike killing Héctor “Niño” Guerrero Flores, the boss of the Tren de Aragua crime group. President Trump announced the operation was “co-ordinated closely with our friends in Venezuela.” Within weeks, Western mining executives were on the ground at El Callao, one of Venezuela’s most famous gold complexes. In April, Venezuela’s National Assembly had already passed a mining-reform bill cutting royalties, prolonging concessions and allowing international arbitration of disputes. 

The message was unambiguous: the Orinoco Mining Arc, a Portugal-sized stretch of rainforest and mineral wealth that Chávez nationalised and Maduro surrendered to criminal syndicates, is now open for Western business under American military cover.

 This should command the full attention of every Guyanese citizen who has followed this news—outlet coverage of the GGMC’s nine-year audit backlog, the U92 Energy Corp. uranium play at Kurupung, the G2 Goldfields/GMIN merger and Guyana’s failure to enforce change-of-control provisions, and the gold laundering vectors through the Guiana Shield into Brazil and beyond. 

 What The Economist describes from the Venezuelan side of the Shield is the mirror image of what we have been documenting from the Guyanese side: the same unregulated extractive frontier, the same absent regulatory infrastructure, the same criminal networks, the same geological wealth being approached without the governance architecture to manage it responsibly.

 The Shield Does Not Recognise Our Border

 The Guiana Shield is one of the oldest geological formations on Earth, stretching across Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana and northern Brazil. It holds some of the world’s most significant deposits of gold, diamonds, bauxite and — as the Kurupung case makes plain — uranium. The criminal networks that have exploited it do not organise themselves around the borders drawn by colonial cartographers. Tren de Aragua, whose leadership the Americans just eliminated in Las Claritas, has been documented operating across the Shield. The FARC dissidents and the National Liberation Army, whom The Economist identifies as still active in Venezuela’s mining belt despite the American air strikes, are not going to demobilise. They are, as one Venezuelan mining industry source told the magazine plainly, going to move. “If you clean up one area, they are going to move somewhere else. It’s that simple.”

 Where do they move? Deeper into national parks, says The Economist. Venezuela’s Imataca and Canaima national parks border Guyana. The Pakaraima mountains straddle the frontier. The same jungle that conceals illegal mining operations at Mazoa Hill and along the Cuyuni river system on the Guyanese side connects without interruption to the zone the Americans are now attempting to clear on the Venezuelan side. The displacement of criminal mining networks from Bolívar state is not a solution to the problem of unregulated extraction on the Guiana Shield. 

It is a pressure valve that will push those networks toward the path of least resistance. Guyana needs to be asking right now whether it is that path.

 The Regulatory Vacuum Is the Real Security Risk

 The government of Guyana will point to the Guyana Gold Board, the GGMC, the Environmental Protection Agency and the various bilateral security arrangements with the United States as evidence that the country is not defenceless. These institutions exist. The question this newspaper has been asking for months — and which events in Venezuela now make urgent — is whether they function adequately for the moment we are in.

The GGMC has not produced audited financial statements in nine years. That is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. In a context where criminal networks are being actively displaced from one part of the Guiana Shield toward another, it means that Guyana’s primary regulatory body for gold and mineral extraction cannot account for what has been extracted, by whom, under what conditions, and where it went. The Mazoa Hill controversy and the Cataratas vector we have previously documented are not isolated incidents. They are evidence of a structural gap between the extractive activity occurring on 

 Guyana’s territory and the state’s capacity to govern it.

 The G2 Goldfields/GMIN merger is a related symptom. When the ownership of a major mining concession changes hands through a corporate restructuring and the state’s change-of-control provisions are not enforced, the message sent to the extractive industry — legitimate and otherwise — is that Guyana’s regulatory framework is a formality, not a constraint. That message travels. It is heard in Caracas, in São Paulo, in the offices of commodity traders in Geneva and Singapore who are now making decisions about the post-Maduro Guiana Shield.

And then there is uranium. The U92 Energy Corp. Kurupung project sits in a jurisdiction with

→no domestic regulatory framework for uranium extraction.

→no specialised inspectorate.

→no established environmental liability regime 

→no parliamentary oversight mechanism with the technical capacity to evaluate what is being proposed.

 We have made this argument before on purely governance grounds.                                                                                                    We make it again now on security grounds: a uranium frontier on the Pakaraima border, adjacent to a zone from which armed criminal networks are being displaced by American military operations, is not a situation that a functioning state should approach with a nine-year audit backlog and an unstaffed Data Protection Commission.

 Washington’s New Architecture and Guyana’s Position

 The broader regional picture demands clear-eyed assessment. The Economist documents what it calls the “Trumpification” of Latin America — seven consecutive right-wing presidential victories since January 2025, an ideological convergence around Washington’s priorities on crime, migration and extractive industry, and a network of direct American military co-operation from Ecuador to Venezuela. The PPP government has historically cultivated a careful non-alignment, maintaining relations with Washington, Beijing and Caracas simultaneously. That triangulation is now under structural pressure.

The US-Venezuela arrangement is revealing in its terms. Venezuela under Rodríguez is supplying mineral access, security co-operation and political compliance in exchange for American recognition, sanctions relief, oil export waivers and military protection. Maduro’s Essequibo aggression — the December 2023 referendum, the military mobilisation, the maps redrawn in Caracas — was a product of that previous regime’s political economy. The Rodríguez government, operating under American supervision, has different incentive structures. The Essequibo claim has not been formally withdrawn. But the regime that was prepared to mobilise it militarily has been replaced by one whose survival depends on American goodwill.

This creates a narrow diplomatic window that Guyana should be exploiting with urgency and precision.

 The International Court of Justice case proceeds on its own timeline. But the political conditions that made Venezuelan adventurism possible have shifted significantly. “A Guyanese government with the strategic literacy and institutional capacity to engage this moment could consolidate real security gains. A government that treats it as background noise while managing oil revenues and managing elections is leaving an opening”.

The question of how Georgetown engages Washington in this new regional architecture is not separable from the question of whether Guyana’s extractive governance is adequate to the moment. 

American capital is rushing into the Guiana Shield. American military presence is reorganizing its security environment. American strategic interest in the region’s mineral wealth — gold, uranium, rare earths — is not abstract. 

If Guyana cannot demonstrate that it governs its portion of the Shield with the transparency and accountability that Western investors and institutions nominally require, it will find itself not as a partner in this new architecture but as the next ungoverned frontier to be reorganised by someone else.

What Needs to Happen

This new outlet does not traffic in alarm for its own sake. We state what the evidence requires:                                                                                               
→The GGMC audit backlog must be cleared as a matter of national security, not administrative housekeeping. The government should be asked in Parliament, specifically and on the record, when audited financial statements for 2017 through 2025 will be tabled. No answer is itself an answer.

→The U92 Kurupung uranium project must be paused pending the establishment of a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework. This is not anti-investment. It is the condition for investment that does not create liabilities the Guyanese state cannot manage.

The Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Economic Services, reduced from monthly to quarterly meetings in the same period that these extractive governance questions have intensified, must be restored to regular function and given the technical support to conduct meaningful oversight of the mining sector.

 The Guyana government must make a formal public assessment of the security implications of the displacement of criminal mining networks from Venezuela’s Bolívar state toward the Pakaraima border region. If that assessment has been made internally, it should be shared with Parliament and the public.

And the PPP government must decide, clearly and on the record, what Guyana’s strategic posture is in the new regional architecture that:                                                                            American policy is constructing. Non-alignment was a coherent position when the region was genuinely multipolar. It becomes incoherence when the Shield on which your economy depends is being reorganised under the military and commercial direction of one power, on your border, right now.

The Guiana Shield does not belong to Washington.

 It does not belong to Caracas. 

A significant portion of it belongs to the people of Guyana.

It is time to govern it like it does.

 The 592 Guardian is an independent accountability journalism outlet. We accept no government advertising and carry no political affiliations.

The State Has No Business at Facebook’s Takedown Counter

/0 Comments/in , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN♦Accountability Journalism ♦Guyana

EDITORIAL ♦JUNE  2026

The State Has No Business at Facebook’s Takedown Counter

When a government seeks a fast lane to remove speech it dislikes, the Constitution is not being protected — it is being dismantled, one deleted post at a time.

Guyana’s Attorney General has confirmed that the administration is exploring an “institutional arrangement” with Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — to expedite the removal of online content. His justification was candid to the point of being inadvertently revealing: by the time a post comes down, “the damage is already done.”

That is not a legal argument. That is the complaint of a government that wants to act before process, before proof, and before any court has found that the speech in question crosses a lawful line. It is, in plain terms, the logic of censorship dressed in the language of administration

.

What Meta’s Framework Actually Says

It is worth being precise about what Meta’s transparency framework actually permits — because the Attorney General’s framing suggests he either misunderstands it or is deliberately conflating it with something more convenient.

Meta distinguishes between at least four types of government engagement with its platform: formal requests for user data, content restrictions based on local law, enforcement of Meta’s own Community Standards, and internet disruption reports. These are not interchangeable. A government cannot simply call Meta and demand a post be removed because it is embarrassing. Meta reviews each request for legal sufficiency.

It rejects requests that are overly broad or vague. When content is restricted in response to a local-law argument, that restriction applies in-country — it is not a global deletion.

Furthermore, Meta logs and publishes data on government content requests through its transparency reports and, in some cases, makes takedown requests available through the Lumen database. This means that any government that abuses the process leaves a public record. An “institutional arrangement” designed to move faster than due process would still be visible to the world — and it would still require Meta to find lawful basis.

The Constitutional Test the Government Cannot Pass

Guyana’s Constitution is unambiguous. Article 146 protects freedom of expression, including the right to hold opinions without interference, to receive ideas and information, and to communicate ideas and information without interference

Article 155 protects privacy, including against interference with correspondence.

Restrictions on these rights are permitted only where they are “reasonably required” for specific purposes: public safety, public order, the protection of others’ rights and freedoms, or preventing the disclosure of confidential information

Political embarrassment is not on that list. Inconvenient reporting is not on that list. Satire of public officials is not on that list. Civic advocacy, criticism of procurement decisions, exposure of governance failures, commentary on electoral conduct — none of these are lawful targets of state suppression, and no “institutional arrangement” with a private platform changes that constitutional reality.

 The burden of justification sits entirely on the state. If the government believes a specific post is defamatory, threatening, or otherwise unlawful, there is a mechanism for that: courts. If it believes content constitutes incitement or criminal fraud, there are law-enforcement channels. A bilateral arrangement with Meta is not a legal process. It is a shortcut around one.

The Muzzle Effect Is the Point

Free-speech jurisprudence across constitutional democracies recognizes that censorship does not require a formal ban to be effective. The fear of surveillance, the knowledge that the state has a special relationship with the platform where you post, the awareness that criticism may trigger removal even if it is entirely lawful — these create what courts have called a “chilling effect.” Speech does not have to be suppressed to be silenced. It only has to be discouraged.

That is precisely what a government “fast lane” to Meta would produce. Ordinary Guyanese citizens — journalists, activists, trade unionists, community organizers, opposition supporters, concerned diaspora members — would be justified in concluding that their posts about government conduct are not safe. That conclusion, once drawn, discourages the kind of civic participation that democracy depends on.

 The Attorney General’s complaint that the “damage is already done” by the time content is removed is, therefore, precisely backwards. In constitutional terms, the damage he describes is not the post being seen. The damage is the state trying to prevent it from being seen at all.

A Pattern This Editorial Board Has Documented

This is not an isolated incident. This Editorial Board has previously documented the administration’s pattern of treating accountability as a threat management problem: the Cybercrime Act provisions that Reporters Without Borders flagged as dangerously broad; the management of information around extractive-industry contracts; the suppression of audit findings; the use of state resources for political communication while civic critics are sidelined.

The approach to Meta fits this pattern. Each individual episode can be explained away — as routine administration, as security concern, as platform governance. But the accumulation of episodes tells a different story: a government that is systematically uncomfortable with the free flow of information about its conduct, and that reaches for institutional tools to manage that discomfort.

That is not governance. That is control.

What Legitimate Government Action Would Look Like

We are not arguing that the state has no legitimate interest in online conduct. Fraud is real. Impersonation is real. Threats of violence are real. Coordinated disinformation targeting electoral integrity is real. These are harms that platforms and governments can and should address through lawful, transparent, narrowly tailored processes.

If Guyana’s government has specific concerns of this nature, it should identify them publicly, ground them in law, proceed through courts or properly constituted law-enforcement channels, and accept the scrutiny that comes with that. That is how a constitutional democracy handles the tension between speech and harm.

What it should not do is seek an opaque back-channel relationship with a private platform for the accelerated removal of content that the state finds inconvenient.

That is not protecting citizens. That is protecting the government from citizens.

The Line That Must Not Be Blurred

In constitutional democracies, the line between lawful enforcement and political censorship must be policed with suspicion, not dissolved by administrative convenience. Once a government normalizes the practice of asking platforms to move fast on speech it dislikes, that line becomes impossible to maintain. The category of “lawfully harmful content” quietly expands to include “content the government finds damaging.”

Guyana is an oil-producing nation at a governance crossroads. Its citizens need more civic information, not less. Its journalists need greater protection, not more exposure to informal state pressure. Its Constitution promises freedom of expression as a fundamental right — not a convenience to be managed away through an institutional arrangement with Silicon Valley.

The Attorney General should be asked, plainly:                  →which specific lawful basis does the government intend to invoke when it contacts Meta?                                                →Which court will have oversight?                                            →Which citizens will be notified?

If he cannot answer those questions, then the arrangement he is describing is not law enforcement. It is censorship by another name, and Guyana’s Constitution — and its citizens — deserve better.

— The 592 Guardian Editorial Board

ENTER THE POLITICAL KINGDOM

/0 Comments/in /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ SPECIAL FEATURE ♦ JUNE 2026.

ENTER THE POLITICAL KINGDOM.— MOSES BHAGWAN

Moses Bhagwan and the Memory of a Nation

Moses Bhagwan has lived long enough to know that history is never as neat as the textbooks make it seem. It arrives in fragments, in clashes of memory, in the stubborn persistence of people who refuse to let their stories be erased.

 His memoir, Enter the Political Kingdom, carries that same spirit: part witness account, part political chronicle, and part personal testament to a life spent inside Guyana’s most challenging struggles.

Bhagwan is not writing from the margins. He is writing from the center of the storm.

The publisher describes him as a descendant of indentured laborers whose path moved from rural beginnings into the thick of political life, across the PPP, the PYO, the Indian Political Revolutionary Associates, and the WPA. That journey alone gives the book its force. It is the story of one man, yes, but it is also the story of a country trying to find itself.

The Making Of A Political Voice

What makes Bhagwan’s story compelling is not only the scope of his political involvement, but the continuity of his purpose.

He was there in the years when Guyana’s political divisions hardened, when ideals collided with power, and when the promise of independence had to be defended from disappointment and distortion. He moved through those years not as a passive observer, but as an active participant with convictions that clearly outlasted the momentary applause of politics.

The memoir, as described by the publisher, does not shy away from the country’s sharpest political ruptures. It engages the original split in the PPP, the rise of authoritarian rule, and the assassination of Walter Rodney — events that still shape Guyana’s political memory and public argument.

These are not ornamental details. They are the bones of the story. Bhagwan does not treat them like museum pieces;he reignite their flame

Personal History, A Public Record

One of the book’s most affecting threads is its attention to the human side of political life. The publisher notes the importance of Bhagwan’s wife, Samia, whose presence steadies the memoir through hardship, exile, and loss. That detail matters because it reminds readers that politics is never only about meetings, manifestos, and movements. It is also about the private endurance that allows public struggle to continue.

This gives the memoir a different texture. It is not a stiff account of offices held and statements issued. It is a living record, shaped by sacrifice, loyalty, and the long discipline of believing in something larger than oneself. Bhagwan’s life, as presented in the book, suggests that political conviction is most meaningful when it survives the storms that test it.

 Why The Book Stands Out

There is a reason Enter the Political Kingdom  deserves attention beyond the circles that already know Bhagwan’s name. It offers readers an insider’s view of Guyana’s political development from a man who helped shape it and carry it. For younger readers, it is a route into the past without the filter of simplification. For older readers, it is a reminder of what was fought for, what was lost, and what remains unresolved.

More than that, the memoir speaks to a larger need: the need to preserve memory before it is smoothed over by convenience. In a political culture where too much is forgotten too quickly, Bhagwan’s account stands as a deliberate act of remembrance. It insists that the struggles of the past still matter because they helped define the present.

A Book Worth Opening

Moses Bhagwan: Enter the Political Kingdom is not just a memoir.

It is a document of struggle, a portrait of political conviction, and a reminder that nationhood is built by people willing to stay in the fight.

It has the intimacy of personal memory and the breadth of public history, which is precisely why it belongs in the hands of readers who care about Guyana’s journey.

This is the kind of book that invites reflection, debate, and admiration. It is also the kind of book that asks to be read with attention. Moses Bhagwan has given us not only a life story, but a window into the making of a political age.

Available on Amazon – just click the link below :

https://a.co/d/0dM2Bkcd