Guyana Cannot Call Itself a Flourishing Democracy While Its Safeguards Are Eroding

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

Guyana Cannot Call Itself a Flourishing Democracy While Its Safeguards Are Eroding

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

The Government of Guyana may continue to speak in the language of democratic progress, economic transformation and international respectability. But the latest World Justice Project Rule of Law Index delivers a sobering counterpoint: Guyana is ranked 81st out of 143 countries globally, 18th out of 32 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 50th among 51 high-income countries.

That is not the profile of a flourishing democracy. It is the profile of a country whose wealth may be rising while its democratic safeguards remain weak, vulnerable and increasingly questioned.

The World Justice Project is not an opposition party, a local activist group, or a newspaper with a political axe to grind. Its Rule of Law Index draws on more than 214,000 household and expert surveys worldwide and assesses how people experience the rule of law in daily life—from accountability and transparency to fundamental rights, justice and constraints on power. When such an international benchmark records Guyana’s decline, responsible leaders should not dismiss the finding. They should confront it.

Wealth is not democracy

Guyana’s placement near the bottom of the high-income grouping is especially revealing. A country can possess vast oil revenues, boast unprecedented growth figures and host high-level international delegations, yet still fail to establish the institutions that make democracy real for ordinary people.

Democracy is not measured by ribbon-cuttings, public-relations campaigns or the frequency of government announcements.

It is measured by whether citizens can criticize those in authority without intimidation; whether journalists can investigate public spending without obstruction; whether civil society can organize freely; whether public information is accessible; and whether the executive is subject to genuine oversight.

Those are not peripheral questions. They are the foundation of constitutional government.

If Guyana’s economy is being recast by petroleum wealth, then its democratic institutions should be strengthening at an even faster pace. Instead, the WJP’s findings point to concern over the very safeguards meant to prevent concentrated power from becoming unchecked power.

Freedom cannot be selective

The warning signs surrounding freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and civic participation deserve special attention. These are not abstract indicators devised for international reports. They describe the practical space available to citizens to speak, organize, protest, question and participate in public life.

A government confident in its record does not fear scrutiny. It does not treat disagreement as disloyalty. It does not equate criticism with sabotage, nor should it tolerate the use of state authority, public resources or partisan networks to marginalize dissenting voices.

Citizens understand this from lived experience. They see it when information is withheld or delayed. They see it when public consultation is reduced to ceremony. They see it when important decisions are announced after the fact rather than debated before they are made. They see it when public criticism is met with hostility instead of answers.

That lived reality matters. The rule of law is not only about what is written in statutes or proclaimed at podiums. It is about whether a citizen feels protected when challenging power and whether institutions act independently when the powerful are involved.

Executive power needs real checks

The WJP has warned globally that executive interference and improper government influence are driving declines in civil and criminal justice, while deterioration in checks on government authority remains a defining feature of the worldwide rule-of-law recession.

Guyana must take that warning seriously.

No democracy is secure when oversight institutions appear weak, delayed, politically influenced or unwilling to act with equal force across political and social lines. No democracy is secure when accountability depends on who is being investigated, who holds office, who has connections, or whose interests are at stake.

The question is not whether Guyana has agencies, commissions, courts and constitutional offices on paper. The question is whether they work independently, consistently and transparently in practice.

The country requires institutions that can investigate without political direction, regulators who publish decisions and reasons, procurement systems open to public examination, police and prosecutors trusted to act fairly, and courts equipped to deliver justice without delay or influence.

Oil heightens the risk

Guyana’s oil boom makes these concerns more urgent, not less.

Resource wealth can build a country when it is managed transparently, invested wisely and governed under firm public oversight. But it can also concentrate power, expand patronage, weaken scrutiny and create an official culture in which access to public resources is treated as political entitlement.

That is why transparency, free expression, public participation and institutional independence are not obstacles to development. They are protections against the capture of development.

A nation receiving billions in petroleum revenues cannot ask its people to accept secrecy, limited consultation or weak oversight as the price of progress. The public has a right to know how national resources are managed, which commitments are being made in its name, how contracts are supervised, and whether the benefits of the country’s wealth are reaching communities fairly.

The government must answer

The appropriate response to the WJP findings is not denial. It is reform.

The Government should publicly address Guyana’s ranking and set out measurable steps to strengthen democratic accountability. Those steps should include:

♦ Publishing timely and complete information on public spending, procurement, contracts, concessions and oil-revenue management.

♦ Protecting the right of journalists, citizens, trade unions, community organizations and political opponents to criticize the state without intimidation or retaliation.

♦ Strengthening independent oversight bodies through adequate resources, transparent appointments and public reporting.

♦ Ensuring meaningful—not symbolic—consultation on major national projects, legislation and policies.

♦ Improving access to justice, reducing case backlogs and protecting the operational independence of the courts and legal institutions.

♦ Treating government information as a public asset rather than a privilege to be selectively released.

♦ Establishing clear consequences for misconduct, corruption, abuse of office and interference with public institutions.

These are not radical demands. They are the minimum standards expected of a government that claims to lead a democratic society.

A democratic test

Guyana should not be content to compare itself only with countries in deeper crisis. It should compare itself with the democratic standard it promises its own people.

The WJP notes that Uruguay, Costa Rica and Barbados remain among the region’s stronger rule-of-law performers, while 19 of the 32 Latin American and Caribbean countries registered declines during the past year. Guyana must decide whether it will accept erosion as normal, or undertake the difficult work of building institutions capable of resisting political pressure and protecting citizens’ rights.

A flourishing democracy is not one that merely holds elections. It is one in which citizens can question authority, organize without fear, obtain information, seek justice, expose wrongdoing and expect the law to apply equally to those with power and those without it. Guyana’s 2026 rule-of-law ranking is therefore more than a number. It is a warning. And it should be treated as one.