Archive for category: Opinions

Beneath the rhetoric lies a familiar reality—public losses, private gains, and political survival

There is a dangerous and intellectually dishonest narrative taking root in Guyana—one that seeks to chain the survival of a failing, state-subsidised sugar industry to the success of a highly profitable private rum company.

Prime Minister Mark Phillips’ claim that Guyana “cannot produce world-class rum without sustaining sugar production” is not only misleading—it is a calculated deflection from the real issue: decades of unchecked public spending on an industry that has consistently failed to justify its cost.
Let us deal in facts, not sentiment.

GuySuCo has absorbed tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies over the past three decades. Year after year, it has failed to produce sugar at a cost competitive with global prices. It remains structurally inefficient, operationally challenged, and financially dependent on the Treasury for survival.

In stark contrast stands Demerara Distillers Limited (DDL)—a private, profit-making corporation that has successfully repositioned itself in the global premium rum market. It has done what efficient enterprises do: adapt, innovate, and grow.
But here is the contradiction the Prime Minister refuses to confront.
If DDL’s success truly depends on sugar, then why is the Guyanese taxpayer being asked to subsidize that dependency? Why is a private company’s supply chain risk being transferred onto the public balance sheet?

Serious businesses do not operate this way. They secure their inputs. They invest in their supply chains. They acquire or partner where necessary to ensure stability and control. If molasses is as indispensable as the government claims, then DDL should be at the forefront of acquiring, restructuring, or directly investing in sugar production.
That is what vertical integration looks like. That is what responsibility looks like.
Anything less is a quiet but deliberate socialization of cost and privatization of profit.

And the question that exposes the fragility of the Prime Minister’s argument is this: what happens when the subsidies stop?
If a future administration—faced with mounting fiscal pressures or shifting priorities—decides it can no longer justify injecting billions into GuySuCo, does DDL cease operations? Or does it simply source molasses from the international market, as any rational business would?
The answer is obvious—and it dismantles the entire premise.

Which brings us to the uncomfortable truth at the heart of this policy posture: this is not economics. This is politics.
The continued subsidization of sugar has long functioned as an electoral instrument—preserving jobs in key constituencies, sustaining rural economic dependencies, and maintaining a support base that is politically valuable. In that context, the invocation of rum is not an economic argument; it is a convenient narrative, designed to make an unsustainable policy appear strategically necessary.

A political necessity is being dressed up as an economic imperative.

Yes, sugar is part of Guyana’s history. Yes, rum is part of its identity. But history cannot be financed indefinitely by taxpayers, and identity cannot be used to obscure fiscal irresponsibility.

If the government believes sugar has a future, it must present a transparent, time-bound plan for viability, with measurable outcomes and accountability. If it does not, then it must stop constructing artificial linkages to justify its continued existence.
Guyanese are not blind to this contradiction. They are being asked, year after year, to fund losses they do not control, for benefits that are politically distributed but economically unsound.

Guyana cannot build a modern economy on this foundation.
It is not strategy. It is subsidy without end, sustained by political convenience and disguised as national pride—and it is time that fiction is called out for what it is.

The question is no longer whether rum depends on sugar. The question is why the Guyanese taxpayer is being asked to carry a burden that private enterprise itself is unwilling to assume.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮,𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨. — ✦—

BY: Hem Kumar                                

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

Guyana is not short on warnings. It is drowning in them.
What it lacks—increasingly, alarmingly—is courage. Not the courage to speak. Speaking is easy. What is demanded now is the courage to act, to confront, to absorb political cost in service of democratic principle. That courage has gone conspicuously absent from those elected and appointed to defend this country’s constitutional framework.

The recent pronouncements by Ganesh Mahipaul and Vincent Alexander on executive overreach are not revelations. They are confirmations of what the public has already witnessed with its own eyes: constitutional bodies weakened, oversight diluted, institutional independence reduced to a procedural illusion maintained for appearances. These men are not breaking news. They are narrating a crisis they have been unable or unwilling to arrest.
Repetition is not resistance. Observation is not opposition. And Guyana has run out of time for those who believe that naming the problem discharges their responsibility to solve it.

What Is Actually Happening
Let us be direct about what is unfolding.
The Executive is not stumbling into overreach. It is executing a deliberate and patient consolidation of power—through budgetary control over independent agencies, through institutional appointments that hollow out oversight functions, through the slow subordination of bodies designed precisely to check executive authority. This is not improvisation. It is architecture.
And it is advancing without meaningful resistance.

Constitutional bodies are being reshaped not through dramatic coups but through the far more effective tools of financial dependency and strategic attrition. When agencies cannot act without executive approval of their budgets, their independence exists only on paper. When commissioners and board members understand that their institutional survival depends on accommodation rather than confrontation, the function of oversight transforms into the performance of it.
This is how democracies erode. Not in one rupture, but in a hundred quiet surrenders.

Mahipaul: Concern Without Consequence
Ganesh Mahipaul is correct to raise the alarm about budgetary interference and the creeping subordination of constitutional agencies. He is correct, and his warnings are insufficient.
Here is the question that must be asked plainly: after the press conference, after the statement, after the soundbite — what then?
If constitutional agencies are being financially strangled, the response cannot be another round of public commentary. It must be legal challenge. It must be judicial intervention. It must be sustained parliamentary pressure that forces the government to either defend its conduct in the open or retreat from it. The opposition has procedural tools available. The courts are available. International oversight bodies are available. The question is not whether mechanisms exist — they do. The question is why they are not being used with the consistency and urgency this moment demands.

An opposition that raises concerns without pursuing decisive countermeasures does not check power. It documents its own ineffectiveness.

That is not opposition. That is a record.

Alexander: The Contradiction That Cannot Be Ignored
The more troubling case is Vincent Alexander.

Alexander has spoken with apparent conviction about institutional capture, democratic erosion, and the importance of integrity within constitutional bodies. These are serious and legitimate concerns. They are also deeply complicated by his own position.

As an opposition-nominated commissioner at GECOM, Alexander’s continued tenure raises questions that deserve honest public examination. The opposition landscape that framed his original appointment has changed substantially. Leadership has shifted. Political realities have evolved. Yet he remains — occupying a seat under circumstances that invite scrutiny — while invoking the very principles of legitimacy and accountability he warns are under threat elsewhere.

One cannot credibly decry the erosion of democratic norms while simultaneously benefiting from their ambiguity. If the argument is that institutions must reflect current political realities, genuine legitimacy, and transparent accountability, then that standard applies universally — not to one’s opponents, and not selectively when convenient.

The public is not incapable of recognising contradiction. When those who warn about institutional compromise appear themselves to occupy contested positions, it does not strengthen the democratic argument. It weakens it. It hands the government precisely the deflection it needs.

If Alexander’s position on institutional integrity is sincere, then consistency demands he apply that same scrutiny to himself. Anything less transforms principle into posture.

The Deeper Crisis: Comfortable in the Grey
What these cases share is the deeper structural failure now threatening Guyana’s opposition politics: too many actors within the system have grown comfortable operating in the very grey areas they publicly condemn.

They critique executive overreach while accommodating its consequences. They warn about compromised institutions while resisting the personal cost of genuine reform. They speak the language of accountability while exempting themselves from its demands. And in doing so, they provide the government not only with cover, but with a mirror — one in which the opposition’s own contradictions make it increasingly difficult for the public to identify who, exactly, is defending democratic principle and who is merely performing it.

This is not a small problem. It is the central problem.

Because the government does not hesitate. It does not narrate its consolidation — it executes it. It organises, advances, and acts. The asymmetry between an executive that moves and an opposition that comments is not sustainable. It is a losing position, and it is being chosen daily.

What Meaningful Representation Looks Like
There is a clear example of what effective opposition strategy looks like, and it deserves to be named and amplified.

Amanza Walton-Desir moved beyond domestic rhetoric and engaged international transparency bodies and diplomatic missions directly — escalating concerns to forums where scrutiny carries institutional weight and where the government cannot simply dismiss criticism as partisan noise. That is not symbolism. That is strategy. It is the recognition that when domestic accountability mechanisms are compromised, the arena must expand.

It is not the full answer. But it is a model.

Effective opposition under conditions of institutional pressure requires action across multiple fronts simultaneously:

Legal and judicial challenges must be pursued against budgetary interference with constitutional agencies. The courts exist precisely for this. Use them, consistently and publicly, not as a last resort but as a first line of resistance.

International escalation must be sustained. Petitions to governance and electoral oversight bodies, engagement with diplomatic missions, formal submissions to regional and international democratic institutions — these create accountability in spaces the government cannot easily control.

Parliamentary pressure must be continuous and strategic, not reactive. Procedural mechanisms exist to force accountability, to demand documentation, to place the government on record. They must be deployed with discipline and persistence, not reserved for moments of political convenience.

Internal accountability must begin immediately. The opposition cannot demand transparency from the government while resisting it from within its own ranks. Every contradiction between stated principle and personal conduct is ammunition for those seeking to discredit democratic resistance.

Credibility Is Built Through Consistency
There is no shortcut here. Credibility is not constructed through statements, however well-worded. It is built through the accumulation of consistent action — through pursuing the legal challenge when it is difficult, through holding the line when accommodation would be easier, through applying standards to oneself that one demands of others.

The public is watching. It is not watching for more warnings. It has heard the warnings. It is watching for evidence that those entrusted with democratic representation understand what time it is — and are willing to act accordingly.

Guyana is no longer in a period of ordinary political contestation. These are conditions under which institutions are being tested. Constitutions that are not defended do not remain intact. Democratic frameworks that are not actively maintained do not preserve themselves. The erosion being described in press conferences is real, it is accelerating, and it will not be reversed by narrating it more eloquently.

If the opposition continues to substitute commentary for action — to observe the crisis rather than confront it — it risks completing a transformation that is already well underway: from political alternative into institutional decoration. Present. Documented. Ineffective.

The Weight of What Comes Next
History is written by those who acted when action was required. It is equally shaped by those who saw clearly, spoke often, and did nothing consequential to alter what they saw.

The warnings have been issued. The analysis is complete. The record of observation is extensive. What remains to be written is the record of response — and that record is being written now, in real time, through every decision made and avoided, every challenge pursued and deferred, every standard upheld and selectively applied.

Guyana deserves more than paper tigers — loud in warning, absent in resistance.

The question is whether those in a position to provide more will choose to do so before the institutions they are warning about no longer exist in any meaningful form to be defended.

The hour is not approaching. It is here.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮,𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨. — ✦—

BY: Hem Kumar                               

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

Dr. Terrence Campbell’s recent call for a “united opposition front” would be easier to take seriously if it did not ring so hollow against the daily reality of opposition inaction and internal decay.

At a time when Guyanese are grappling with rising living costs, uneven distribution of oil wealth, and deepening concerns about governance, the opposition’s primary offering cannot be another round of speeches about unity. Unity, in this context, risks becoming a convenient slogan—one that distracts from a far more uncomfortable truth: the opposition has yet to demonstrate that it can effectively use the power it already holds.

The APNU, along with other opposition elements, occupies seats in Parliament. Those seats are not symbolic—they are tools of oversight, pressure, and accountability. Yet far too often, the opposition behaves like passive occupants, drawing salaries while failing to mount sustained, strategic challenges to the government they now accuse of overreach and inequity.

Nowhere is this failure more glaring than in Region 10. A prolonged governance vacuum persists, affecting citizens who are entitled to proper representation and administration. And yet, there has been no relentless parliamentary assault, no coordinated legal escalation, no sustained national campaign to force resolution. The issue lingers, quietly pushed aside, while the opposition pivots to lofty calls for unity.

But perhaps the most damning indictment of Dr. Campbell’s leadership—and by extension the broader opposition—lies not in what they say, but in who is leaving.

In recent times, no fewer than seven individuals who held positions at various levels of governance under the opposition have crossed over to the PPP. These are not fringe figures or casual supporters; these are individuals who sat within the machinery of opposition politics, who understood its inner workings, and who ultimately chose to walk away.

That is not a minor political inconvenience. That is a vote of no confidence.

Strong institutions do not hemorrhage leadership. Effective leaders do not preside over steady exits.

When individuals abandon their posts and align themselves with the very government the opposition claims is failing the nation, it raises serious questions about internal confidence, direction, and credibility.

Who, indeed, joins a political movement that cannot retain its own?

And more importantly—who follows a leader whose ranks are thinning from within?

Dr. Campbell’s call for a grand coalition, in this context, appears less like a strategic vision and more like an attempt to compensate for internal weakness. Before inviting others to the table, he must first explain why his own table is losing its occupants.

The invocation of historical figures such as Critchlow, Lachmansingh, Burnham, and Jagan only sharpens the contrast. These were leaders who built movements that attracted, mobilised, and retained people because they inspired confidence and delivered results. Collective action followed strength—it did not substitute for it.

Today, the pattern is the reverse. Issues are raised—whether it be the treatment of foreign workers, governance concerns, or economic disparities—but they rarely reach resolution. They are aired, repackaged, and recycled, while the public sees little evidence of tangible outcomes.

Even the call for supporters to remain calm when opposition figures engage each other betrays a deeper issue: a base that is unconvinced, fragmented, and wary. That is not a messaging problem—it is a leadership problem.

The accusations against the PPP/C—regarding state overreach, institutional pressure, and inequitable distribution of wealth—are serious and deserve scrutiny. But scrutiny requires more than rhetoric. It demands discipline, persistence, and results.
Guyanese are not waiting for another alliance announcement. They are waiting for leadership that functions.

If the opposition cannot hold its ground in Parliament, cannot resolve pressing regional issues, and cannot retain its own members, then calls for unity will continue to sound like what they increasingly resemble: a deflection from failure.

Before calling others to join, fix what is broken within.

Because unity without strength is not a strategy—it is an illusion.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮,𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨. — ✦—

BY: Hem Kumar                               

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

The Chronicle’s recent Crossfire column attempts to reassure Guyanese that the government has the cost-of-living crisis firmly in hand. It is a comforting narrative—but one that drifts too far from the daily reality confronting citizens.

Across the country, the story is not one of stability or relief. It is one of stretching paychecks, cutting back on essentials, and navigating a steady rise in the price of basic goods. For many households, the question is no longer about economic theory or global trends—it is about whether income can keep pace with survival.

The column leans heavily on government initiatives—cash grants, fuel interventions, and manifesto commitments—as evidence of a “structured and deliberate” response. But listing measures is not the same as proving effectiveness. Where is the data showing that these interventions are meaningfully reducing the burden on households? Where is the transparency on how prices are trending relative to wages?
To suggest that these efforts are sufficiently cushioning citizens is, at best, premature—and at worst, dismissive of the lived experiences of thousands of Guyanese.

Yes, global pressures are real. Supply chain disruptions and imported inflation affect small economies like ours. But invoking external forces cannot become a convenient shield against accountability. Governments are elected precisely to manage these pressures, not to explain them away.

More troubling is the column’s attempt to discredit dissent. Labelling critics as “misinformed” or driven by social media attention is a familiar tactic, but it does little to address the substance of public concern. People are not speaking out because they are confused; they are speaking out because they are feeling the pressure in real terms—at the market, at the pump, and in their monthly bills.

In any functioning democracy, opposition voices and public criticism are not irritants to be dismissed—they are signals to be examined. If anything, the persistence and volume of these concerns should prompt deeper inquiry, not defensive rhetoric.

The government’s broader development agenda—highlighting infrastructure expansion, tourism growth, and declining youth unemployment—may point to macroeconomic progress. But macroeconomic indicators do not pay grocery bills. Growth that does not translate into improved purchasing power risks becoming an abstract achievement, disconnected from everyday life.
What is notably absent from the Crossfire narrative is urgency. There is little acknowledgment that current measures may be insufficient, or that more targeted, immediate interventions are required. Price monitoring must be strengthened. Support for local food production must move from promise to measurable output. Wage growth—particularly in the public sector—must be seriously addressed.

Instead, the column asks for patience, assuring citizens that more help is on the way. But patience is not a policy. It is a request—and one that becomes harder to justify when relief remains uneven or delayed.
Guyana is not short on resources or ambition. What is needed now is sharper execution, clearer accountability, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. The cost-of-living crisis cannot be managed through optimism alone.
If the government is indeed “actively engaging” this issue, then it must also be prepared to answer hard questions about outcomes—not intentions.

Because for the average Guyanese family, the measure of success is simple: can they afford to live with dignity? Right now, too many would answer no.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦—