“Show the Schedule or Stop the Spin.”

A RESPONSE TO GAIL TEIXEIRA’S DRIVEL

“𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝑺𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒍𝒆 𝑹𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔 𝑾𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑭𝒓𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌”— GT BUZZ

Spare us the polished talking points and constitutional window dressing—what we are witnessing is not procedural normalcy, it is calculated avoidance of scrutiny.

If everything is above board, then publish the parliamentary schedule. Not selectively, not vaguely, not through press statements—publish it in full. The refusal or reluctance to do so raises a simple question: what exactly is being hidden from the people?

Government business is not a private exercise conducted behind closed doors and dressed up after the fact. It is funded by taxpayers, it is executed in the name of the people, and it must be subjected to continuous parliamentary oversight. That is not optional. That is the foundation of accountable governance.

You cannot boast about budgets, projects, and national development while sidelining the very institution designed to interrogate, approve, and monitor those actions.

The National Assembly is not a ceremonial inconvenience—it is the central pillar of democratic accountability.

Keeping it effectively dormant while claiming “work continues” is nothing short of political evasion.

Let us call this what it is: governance by insulation. A system where decisions are made, money is spent, and policies are rolled out without the consistent, visible, and structured scrutiny of Parliament. That is not strength. That is a dangerous drift toward executive dominance.

And the attempt to dismiss legitimate concern by hiding behind sovereignty arguments is equally disingenuous. Sovereignty does not mean secrecy. It does not mean the executive gets to decide when and how democracy is performed. It certainly does not mean the public must accept silence where transparency is required.

Elections are not a five-year licence to disappear into unchecked authority. Democracy does not begin and end at the ballot box. It lives—or dies—in the daily practice of accountability, debate, and institutional integrity. When those mechanisms are weakened, delayed, or manipulated, the damage is not theoretical—it is real and immediate.

And let us not pretend otherwise: when the lines between party and state blur, when institutions bend to executive convenience, and when Parliament is treated as expendable, the word “capture” is no longer provocative—it is accurate.

The Guyanese people are not naïve. They understand the difference between governance and control. They understand when they are being managed instead of represented.

So again, the demand is simple: show the schedule. Convene the Assembly. Subject government business to the scrutiny it requires.
Anything less is not governance. It is avoidance dressed up as order.
And the country deserves better than that.