Parliament Is Not a Podcast

   Parliament Is Not a Podcast

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, has delivered a lecture to the Opposition on its democratic duties. He says it must rise above allegations of corruption, local complaints and political exchanges; that it must offer constructive criticism, policy guidance and a credible alternative vision for Guyana.

On its face, that proposition is beyond dispute.

Guyana needs serious debate about the cost of living, Venezuela’s continuing threat to our territorial integrity, climate change, food security, public debt, oil wealth, infrastructure priorities and the long-term shape of the economy. The Opposition, whether large or small, has a responsibility to scrutinize the Government, propose alternatives and demonstrate that it is capable of governing.

 But the Attorney General’s sermon collapses under the weight of the Government’s own conduct.

How can the Opposition perform the role he now demands when the very institution designed for that role—the National Assembly—has been treated as an occasional convenience of the Executive? How can a parliamentary opposition be expected to conduct sustained policy scrutiny when Parliament is summoned only intermittently, and principally when the Government has legislation, spending or other business it considers necessary to process?

The country cannot be told, with a straight face, that the Opposition must elevate national discourse while Parliament—the constitutional forum for national discourse—is left dormant.

The learned Attorney General appears to want the Opposition to discuss the country’s most serious concerns in the “open spaces”: through podcasts, press conferences, Facebook posts and public exchanges. But Guyana did not establish a Parliament, elect Members of the National Assembly, appoint a Speaker and sustain a parliamentary administration at public expense merely to turn public policy into a social-media contest.

A podcast is not Parliament. A Facebook Live is not Parliament. A press release is not Parliament.

 The National Assembly is where ministers are answerable, where questions may be asked on the public record, where documents can be demanded, where laws are examined, where budgets are scrutinized, where motions are debated and where the Government must confront—not evade—the representatives of the people.

That is why the low number of sittings is so deeply troubling. Four sittings over thirteen months is not an active legislative program. It is not a serious commitment to democratic scrutiny. It is certainly not a convincing foundation on which the Government can demand that the Opposition provide rigorous, sustained and policy-driven engagement on every major challenge confronting the country.

If the Attorney General believes the Opposition has been silent on Venezuela, then why has the Government not brought the issue before Parliament for a comprehensive national debate?  Why was the LOO not briefed by the learned, ever-expressive AG.  Venezuela’s posture is not a side issue. It is perhaps the most grave and enduring national-security challenge facing Guyana. It demands more than ministerial statements, selective briefings and political criticism.

If the Government wants a serious discussion about the cost of living, let it bring the matter to the House. Let ministers explain why prices remain punishing for ordinary families despite the country’s unprecedented oil revenues. Let the Opposition table its proposals. Let Government defend its policies. Let the country hear the arguments and judge the competing prescriptions.

If food security is a central regional responsibility, let Parliament examine the plans, targets, funding, land-access arrangements, drainage and irrigation systems, logistics and markets required to meet that responsibility. If climate change and sea-level rise are existential concerns, let the Government submit its adaptation strategy, financing plans and coastal-defense priorities to the scrutiny of the people’s representatives.

 And if Guyana is navigating the tension between fossil-fuel expansion and environmental responsibility, Parliament must not be reduced to an afterthought. The management of petroleum wealth, the terms of major agreements, the use of the Natural Resource Fund, local-content compliance, gas-to-energy expenditures and the country’s environmental safeguards deserve frequent and searching examination.

These are not matters to be left to carefully curated media appearances.

Nor should the Government be permitted to use the language of “constructive criticism” as a code for an Opposition that criticizes only on terms acceptable to the Government. Constructive criticism does not mean timid criticism. It does not mean that the Opposition must first secure ministerial approval before exposing failures, waste, secrecy, conflicts of interest or abuse of power.

A healthy opposition must be free to investigate, accuse, challenge and demand answers. It must pursue corruption allegations where evidence warrants them. It must question projects, procurement, land allocations, public spending, contracts and local failures, because those failures affect real people and real communities. Roads, farms, fences, drainage, pumps and other local concerns may appear to be “minutiae” to those in high office, but they are not minor to the farmer whose crop is destroyed, the household whose property floods or the community left without essential services.

The Attorney General should know that accountability does not become trivial merely because it is grounded in the daily hardship of citizens.

Still, he is right on one point: Guyana needs a higher quality of policy debate. But that debate must take place first and foremost where the Constitution intended it to take place—in Parliament.

The Government cannot shutter or marginalize the nation’s principal deliberative chamber, then rebuke the Opposition for seeking alternative public spaces in which to be heard. It cannot restrict opportunities for formal scrutiny and then complain when the national conversation moves to the media, public meetings and social platforms. It cannot weaken parliamentary culture and then feign disappointment at the quality of political discourse outside Parliament.

That is not statesmanship. It is convenience masquerading as concern for democracy.

Is it on social media? Is it on a podcast? Is it in press statements? Is it at public meetings? Or is it in the National Assembly, where the Government and Opposition can meet openly, regularly and under the scrutiny of the people?

If the Attorney General’s answer is that these matters belong in Parliament, then the remedy lies largely with his own Government. Convene the House regularly. Permit meaningful debates. Provide sufficient time for questions and motions. Make ministers answerable. Facilitate parliamentary committees. Treat the Opposition as an elected institution, not an inconvenience to be managed.

And if Parliament is to remain largely idle while public affairs are debated in open spaces, then taxpayers are entitled to ask why they are carrying the expense of a parliamentary establishment that is not being allowed to fulfil its central constitutional purpose. The public purse is already under pressure. Pensioners are still compelled to fight for benefits they say are legally due to them. Families continue to confront high food prices and rising living costs. In that context, every dollar spent on underused democratic institutions demands explanation.

 Guyana does not need an Opposition invited to perform democracy on social media. It needs a Parliament that works.

Mr. Nandlall cannot credibly demand an effective opposition while accepting an ineffective parliamentary calendar. The Government cannot call for policy guidance while withholding the principal platform for policy debate. And no amount of eloquence on a podcast can substitute for a living, active and accountable National Assembly.

The Opposition must improve where it has failed. But the Government must first stop denying it the forum in which an opposition is constitutionally meant to function.