Dear Editor:
President Irfaan Ali’s emotional and dismissive response to the final report of the European Union Election Observer Mission (EU EOM) is deeply concerning and fails to meet the standards of accountability expected of a head of state. Rather than engaging with the report’s substantive findings, the President has chosen to attack the messengers and misrepresent their conclusions, thereby undermining a process designed to strengthen Guyana’s democracy. His immature and incoherent outburst resembles Burnham in his worst days when he became a stranger to democracy. Is the PPP taking Guyana into a dictatorship? A point-by-point rebuttal of his key arguments is necessary, so Editor please allow me to address this puerility and foolishness on the part of His Excellency:
● President Ali’s Claim: He labeled the concept of an “uneven playing field” as “ridiculous” and “nonsense,” arguing that delivering on manifesto promises is not an advantage but simply “delivery.”
● The Rebuttal: This argument deliberately conflates legitimate governance with improper electioneering. The EU EOM report, like all credible international observer methodologies, does not criticize a government for fulfilling its promises. It criticizes the timing and manner of these actions. The report specifically cited:
◦ The use of state vehicles at PPP/C campaign meetings. Not just Ministers, but on most occasion, every single speaker turned up with a Government vehicle. I know of one Deputy Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Education who commandeered a Government vehicle and driver throughout the entire campaign. But these truths President Ali pretends did not happened.
◦ The launch of new or expanded social programmes immediately near elections was deliberately done. Take the case of the Bharrat Jagdeo Bridge; fireworks to the tune of over ten million Guyana dollars were ignited near the bridge before the elections just to create an atmosphere of pomp and ceremony and project delivered before the elections when this was patently false. Why three months after the elections there is still two mega-cranes still working on the superstructure of the Jagdeo Bridge? So President Ali is just engaging in world class buffoonery.
◦ The presence of persons dressed in party colours at official government events. Every single time. So Government functions became party functions. There is a major difference in the two functions. Public servants turned up at Government functions only to be surrounded by party “goons” who then morphed the event into a PPP function giving the impression that the public servants are PPP operatives. That is patently undemocratic and wrong Mr. President.
These are clear examples of using state resources for partisan campaign purposes, which creates an unfair advantage. Governments in mature democracies maintain a strict distinction between state and party activities, especially during an election period. To claim otherwise demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of, or a willful disregard for, democratic norms.
● President Ali’s Claim: He dismissed concerns about voters receiving calls from the PPP/C, saying all parties do it.
● The Rebuttal: This position from His Excellency is patently inaccurate. How can I trust you Mr. President when you engage in such strange behaviours. A lie is a lie. Why are you completely sidestepping the grave issue at the core of the EU’s finding? The concern is not that political parties make calls, but that contact information collected by the government during the non-partisan distribution of the “cash grant” was allegedly transferred to the ruling party for its campaign. Everyone who received a call, they can attest it went like this “I am… calling to find out if you receive your cash grant”, if the answer was yes, then… said “well you know if President Ali win the next elections, then there will be more cash grant and therefore please put your X next to the cup”. What the PPP did constitutes a severe breach of data privacy and a blatant fusion of state and party apparatus. It is an abuse of power, not a standard campaign tactic.
● President Ali’s Claim: He argued that the report ignored negative coverage of the PPP/C in private media and that his party paid for all its advertising.
● The Rebuttal: The EU EOM’s media monitoring, detailed in an annex to the report, provided quantitative data. It found that state-owned media was “completely oriented towards supporting the ruling party.” The role of state media is to serve the public interest, and that is what is in question here, not the private media. If you check the National Budget, NCN and the others are receiving tens of millions of taxpayers’ money. These taxpayers are members of the PNC, PPP, WIN and others and thus those funds must serve all sides, not only the PPP. The President’s deflection to negative coverage in private outlets is irrelevant; a free press is expected to be critical and the public will unfund those who are unprofessional; that is not the President’s job, he need to focus on the State Media. The state media’s failure to provide balanced coverage is the central failure of governance highlighted by the report.
● President Ali’s Claim: He asserted the report was based on “complaints” rather than “facts” and questioned the independence of local staff.
● The Rebuttal: This is an unfounded and damaging ad hominem attack. The EU EOM was a 50-member mission comprising international experts. Their findings were based on direct observation—their teams were present at events and witnessed the use of state resources firsthand. To impugn the integrity of the mission because its evidence-based conclusions are inconvenient is a tactic unbecoming of a national leader. It erodes trust in independent assessment and international partnerships.
● President Ali’s Claim: He triumphantly stated that the report found the elections reflected the “will of the people” and supported the “free and fair” conclusion of other groups.
● The Rebuttal: This is a deliberate misreading. The EU EOM Chief Observer, Mr. Biedroń, explicitly declined to use the term “free,” stating the situation was “much more complex.” He clearly stated that while Election Day was peaceful and well-run, significant “gaps” and “challenges” in the overall process remained. The President is cherry-picking the positive aspects while ignoring the damning systemic critiques that form the body of the report.
President Ali’s reaction is another missed opportunity for national reflection and growth. Instead of acknowledging valid criticisms and committing to reform, he has chosen denial and confrontation. A mature democracy welcomes scrutiny and works to improve its systems. By dismissing a detailed, evidence-based report from independent parties who have no vested interest in choosing a side in the Guyanese elections, as “biased”, corroborates that the President is demonstrating an alarming intolerance for accountability. This is his final term; this is his legacy. Is he prepared to be remembered as Ali the Dictator?
The people of Guyana deserve leaders who respect democratic principles enough to uphold them not just in victory, but also in the face of constructive criticism. The EU EOM’s report is not an attack on Guyana; it is a roadmap for building a stronger, more resilient democracy. It is a shame the President has chosen to respond to it in a most childish and petulant manner.