Dear Editor,
Recent developments in Guyana’s political and legal landscape reveal an unsettling pattern that raise serious questions about the government’s alleged ongoing constitutional reform effort. What has been promoted as a transformative national project risks becoming a pseudo-constitutional exercise—one that mimics the language of democratic reform while consolidating political control beneath the surface.
The ongoing saga involving the Mohameds only deepens these concerns. The swift emergence of Azruddin Mohamed as a political force, followed by the legal pressures now surrounding him and his family, have unfolded in a manner that seems inseparable from the broader contest for political dominance. Whether one views the Mohameds as controversial actors or as targets of selective enforcement, the timing and intensity of the state’s actions raise legitimate questions about the independence of Guyana’s institutions.
At the same time, the move to adjust the composition of the Constitution Reform Commission—precisely when new political players are gaining ground—suggests an attempt to shape the trajectory of reform before public consensus can be meaningfully formed. A government should not redesign the rules of governance while holding an overwhelming advantage in interpreting and enforcing those same rules. A reform process steered by those who stand to benefit from its outcome is no reform at all.
This approach is not unique to Guyana. Around the world, constitutional reform has often been used to consolidate power rather than democratize. In Russia, the 2020 constitutional amendments were presented as modernizing reforms, yet strategically reset presidential term limits, allowing Vladimir Putin to extend his rule while maintaining a façade of legality. In Turkey, the 2017 constitutional referendum was framed as a step toward efficient governance, but in practice it dramatically expanded presidential authority, weakened parliamentary oversight, and entrenched one-party dominance under the guise of democratic restructuring.
These international parallels illustrate how easily constitutional reform can be weaponized to legitimize political consolidation. Guyana must avoid falling into this pattern. True constitutional reform requires broad participation, transparency, and respect for the rule of law—not the dismissal of opposing views as uninformed or “frivolous,” and not the reshaping of key commissions to ensure predetermined outcomes. A constitution must serve as a protective framework for all citizens, not as an instrument of convenience for those in office.
Guyana stands at a pivotal juncture. If reforms are merely performative, they will further erode trust in national institutions. But if pursued with integrity, independence, and genuine public engagement, they can strengthen the democratic foundations the nation urgently needs. The people of Guyana deserve reforms that are authentic—not cosmetic; resilient—not politically engineered; and democratic—not selectively applied.