They Abandoned the Vehicle—Now They Want to Drive It

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

They Abandoned the Vehicle—Now They Want to Drive It

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

Several readers from across Guyana’s political spectrum have asked for my considered view on the growing calls for opposition parties, labor groups, and civic-minded actors to form a united national coalition. Proponents argue that such a collective may be necessary to counter what they see as an increasingly authoritarian, disconnected, and unaccountable PPP-C administration—amid persistent allegations of corruption, official overreach, and a worsening cost-of-living crisis.

As an independent and apolitical observer, choosing to address the opposition parties as the people’s representatives ,I offer the following perspectives not as an endorsement of any party or personality, but as a pragmatic contribution to a discussion that deserves serious national attention and debate.

Cooperation Cannot Be a One-Way Street making the case for principled cooperation while challenging selective silence and backdoor political bargaining.

Let there be no misunderstanding: WIN must reject every attempt by opportunistic power seekers to enter through the back door of the mandate that Guyanese voters gave to WIN through the front door of the ballot box.

The parties now speaking of “cooperation,” “collective leadership” and shadow positions had every opportunity to stand with WIN when democratic principles were under attack. They could have raised their voices against WIN’s exclusion from GECOM representation; demanded that duly elected WIN representatives in Region Ten be allowed to take office; and insisted that the largest opposition bloc be included in constitutional reform discussions. Too often, they chose silence.

They abandoned the vehicle when it was travelling through the hardest road. Now that WIN has built momentum, secured the largest opposition mandate and emerged as the principal voice confronting the Government, they want to climb aboard, seize the steering wheel and claim credit for a journey they refused to make.

That is not cooperation. It is rank opportunism

WIN should remain open to principled, issue-based collaboration with anyone prepared to defend democracy, electoral fairness, accountability and the rights of all Guyanese. But no political is entitled to portfolios, titles, influence or legitimacy merely because it now sees WIN’s mandate as a route back to relevance.

Cooperation must be earned through courage, consistency and public action—not requested as a reward for silence. WIN must stand resolute, protect the mandate of its supporters, and reject every backdoor attempt to dilute, capture or exploit the movement voters entrusted to lead the Opposition.

The latest proposal that WIN should assemble a broad “Government-in-Waiting” by distributing shadow portfolios and senior roles among APNU-PNC, AFC and the Forward Guyana Movement is not a serious roadmap for democratic renewal. It is an attempt to use WIN’s electoral mandate to restore relevance to political actors who have not demonstrated the same willingness to defend that mandate when democracy itself is under pressure.

The issue is not whether the Opposition should cooperate. Of course it should. Guyana’s democracy, public finances, electoral system and institutions are too important for any responsible political movement to reject principled cooperation.

But cooperation cannot mean that WIN is expected to provide legitimacy, office, visibility and political rescue to others, while those same actors remain silent when WIN is excluded, undermined or denied its lawful place in the democratic architecture of the country.

WIN was elected as the largest opposition bloc. The Leader of the Opposition carries a mandate from the electorate, not an obligation to become the political rehabilitation center for organizations whose support has collapsed or whose voices are absent when national issues demand courage.

Silence on GECOM Is Telling

The question of the Guyana Elections Commission is a national democratic emergency. The present composition of GECOM continues to reflect an outdated political reality, while WIN—the largest opposition force—has no commissioner representing its constituency or its legitimate interests.

That arrangement should concern every political party claiming to support electoral democracy. It should concern every organization that speaks of free and fair elections. It should concern the diplomatic community, regional bodies and international observers who have repeatedly insisted that democratic institutions must be credible, balanced and trusted by the public.

Yet where is the sustained advocacy from APNU-PNC, AFC and FGM?

APNU-PNC must demonstrate a genuine commitment to a renewed political order by first decisively breaking with the old one. Guyana is now an oil-resource-rich republic, and its political, economic and social realities have shifted dramatically.

There is no room for antiquated ideology, entrenched intransigence or leadership models that belong to another era.

The party must clear its slate, renew its leadership culture and present fresh, credible ideas suited to the demands of modern Guyana. Renewal cannot be merely a slogan offered at election time; it must be visible in the people chosen to lead, the policies advanced, the communities engaged and the courage shown when democratic principles are under attack.

FGM and AFC, too, must prove that they can adapt to this new political dispensation and sustain meaningful advocacy. Standing with the people requires more than occasional social-media snippets, convenient statements or commentary from the sidelines.

The condition of the nation demands consistent public engagement, visible grassroots work, clear policy positions and a willingness to confront wrongdoing wherever it occurs.

Anything less is political theatre.

Where are their public statements demanding that GECOM’s opposition representation be regularized in a manner consistent with the current parliamentary and electoral reality? Where are the joint letters, the public campaigns, the legal interventions, the parliamentary motions and the collective pressure?

There has been no comparable national mobilization. Instead, those who now speak freely about “cooperation” and a collective shadow cabinet appear comfortable with a structure in which WIN is denied representation while others continue to benefit from arrangements inherited from a previous era.

That silence is not harmless. Silence permits democratic distortion to become normal. Silence creates the impression that exclusion is acceptable once it does not affect one’s own political interest.

No party can credibly demand a share of WIN’s political legitimacy while refusing to fight for WIN’s basic democratic representation.

Region Ten Cannot Be Ignored

The reported efforts to prevent duly elected WIN officials in Region Ten from assuming their respective offices raise another grave issue of governance. If elected representatives can be obstructed, excluded or delayed through political maneuvering, then the question is larger than any party. It becomes a question of whether the result of an election will be honored only when it pleases the Government.

That is not a narrow WIN matter. It is a test of local democracy, the rule of law and the integrity of Guyana’s representative institutions.

Those who claim to believe in coalition politics should have been at the forefront of demanding clarity, lawful process and respect for the will of voters. They should have demanded that no elected official be denied office through administrative gamesmanship or partisan interference.

Instead, WIN has been left to carry the fight virtually alone.

A political movement cannot remain on the sidelines when another opposition party is being excluded today, then appear tomorrow seeking office, shadow portfolios and national visibility. The democratic principle must be defended when it is difficult—not only when a political reward may follow.

Exclusion from Constitutional Reform

The issue of WIN’s absence from the Constitutional Reform Commission is equally serious. Constitutional reform is not a private club for the Government and a selected group of politically convenient participants. It goes to the heart of how Guyana distributes power, protects rights, strengthens institutions, safeguards elections and prevents abuse.

Excluding the largest opposition bloc from that process damages its legitimacy before the work is even complete.

A constitutional reform exercise without meaningful representation from the largest parliamentary opposition is not inclusive reform. It is managed reform. It risks becoming an exercise in producing predetermined outcomes rather than a genuine national compact

Once again, where has been the public resistance from those now calling for a united opposition structure? Why have parties that seek senior positions in a hypothetical shadow government not made WIN’s inclusion in the constitutional reform process a clear and non-negotiable demand?

If the constitutional future of Guyana can be shaped without WIN, then those who remain silent have no standing to lecture WIN about partnership.

No Backdoor Route to Relevance

The electoral facts cannot be wished away. The people rejected the old formulas, the tired personalities and the politics of entitlement. WIN secured the largest opposition mandate because a significant section of Guyanese wanted a force that would challenge the Government directly, insist on accountability and reject business as usual.

APNU-PNC, AFC and FGM have the right to organize, speak, contest elections and earn the trust of the people. They also have the right to participate in public debate and support causes that advance democracy.

But none has an automatic right to a share of WIN’s mandate.

A shadow cabinet cannot become a backdoor route through which rejected or weakened political organizations regain relevance without doing the difficult work of rebuilding their own relationship with the electorate. Nor should senior positions be treated as consolation prizes for parties whose public support, organizational reach and current advocacy do not justify such roles.

Political legitimacy cannot be negotiated into existence in private meetings. It must be earned in public.

Backdoor politics has failed repeatedly, in Guyana and around the world. Arrangements designed among political elites, rather than built through accountability to voters, almost always weaken the very movement they are supposed to strengthen. They create confusion, conflict, divided messaging and mistrust among supporters.

Most dangerously, they hand the PPP a ready-made argument: that WIN is simply being absorbed into the same old political establishment that voters sought to reject.

WIN must not walk into that trap.

Cooperation Has Conditions

WIN should not reject cooperation. It should define it.

Any party, civic organisation, union, professional body or citizen who wants to work with WIN on democratic reform should be welcomed—but the cooperation must begin with action, not demands for titles.

Before there can be any conversation about coordinated parliamentary structures, shadow ministries or collective opposition arrangements, there must be demonstrated commitment to the issues that affect the democratic rights of WIN voters and, by extension, all Guyanese.

The minimum conditions are clear:

♦ A public and sustained demand for a reformed GECOM structure that reflects the present electoral and parliamentary reality, including fair opposition representation for WIN.

♦ Joint action to ensure that duly elected WIN officials in Region Ten are permitted to assume office without political obstruction or administrative manipulation.

♦ An unequivocal call for WIN’s meaningful inclusion in the Constitutional Reform Commission and all major national reform processes.

♦ A shared campaign for transparency, constitutionalism, electoral integrity, accountable government and equal treatment under the law.

♦ A commitment to public advocacy, parliamentary action and lawful democratic pressure—not quiet diplomacy when visibility is useful and silence when courage is required.

These are not unreasonable demands. They are the minimum standards of democratic solidarity.

A party cannot ask WIN to stand shoulder to shoulder with it in a shadow cabinet while refusing to stand beside WIN when the democratic rights of WIN supporters are being denied.

Questions for the Diplomatic Community

The diplomatic community must also answer difficult questions.

Representatives of foreign missions, international organizations and other external partners regularly speak about democracy, inclusion, institutional integrity and consensus. We are told that they have held meetings with opposition actors, civic groups and political stakeholders. Yet WIN, as the largest opposition bloc, has reportedly been excluded from or marginalized in some of these engagements.

That cannot be reconciled with the stated commitment to inclusion.

It is not enough for diplomats to meet familiar political faces, engage convenient “outliers,” or maintain relationships built around old political structures. If the purpose of their engagement is to support democracy and national dialogue, then the country’s largest opposition force cannot be an afterthought.

The diplomatic community should state clearly:

♦ Does it recognize that WIN’s absence from GECOM representation raises a serious question of democratic legitimacy?

♦ Has it raised the Region Ten issue and demanded respect for the rights of duly elected WIN officials?

♦ Has it called for WIN’s inclusion in the Constitutional Reform Commission?

♦ When it meets opposition parties or civil-society actors, why is the Leader of the Opposition and the largest opposition bloc not consistently included?

♦ Will it insist that dialogue on democracy includes those who carry the current mandate of opposition voters?

Diplomacy that excludes the principal opposition voice is not neutral. It has consequences. It risks reinforcing outdated structures, rewarding political convenience and giving legitimacy to a process from which a substantial section of the electorate is shut out.

WIN does not seek special treatment. It demands equal treatment, democratic recognition and respect for the mandate entrusted to it by voters.

The Mandate Must Be Protected

The Leader of the Opposition is right to be careful. A mandate hard won can be easily diluted by careless alliances, opportunistic appointments and arrangements that have no foundation in public trust.

WIN’s task is not to imitate the political culture that Guyanese have grown weary of. Its task is to build a modern opposition capable of governing: evidence-based, disciplined, inclusive, competent and fearless.

That means exposing wrongdoing with documents and facts. It means challenging corruption through lawful institutions. It means proposing credible solutions for oil wealth, jobs, wages, housing, health care, education, infrastructure and national unity. It means building a serious shadow structure around merit, integrity and public confidence—not around old party labels and political debt.

The country needs principled unity, but unity cannot be a disguise for personal ambition or a mechanism for distributing positions among political elites.

Those who want cooperation must first demonstrate solidarity. Those who want a role in a future Government-in-Waiting must first show that they can defend the democratic rights of the people today. WIN will cooperate where cooperation serves Guyana. But it must never be used as a ladder for those seeking to climb back into relevance through the back door.