Dear Editor,
I continue to be disappointed with the recently released Final Report of the European Union Election Observer Mission (EU EOM) on the 2025 elections in Guyana[1]. While the report offers familiar observations on election administration, campaign conduct, and procedural matters, it fails to address one of the most critical deficiencies in our democratic process: the electorate’s limited understanding of the complex issues shaping national development, as well as their insufficient knowledge of the Constitution and their fundamental rights.
Elections are not merely procedural events; they are moments when citizens are called upon to exercise informed and independent judgment. Yet many Guyanese voters are not adequately equipped to fully comprehend the socioeconomic, environmental, energy, and geopolitical challenges before them. Equally troubling is the widespread lack of understanding of constitutional
provisions, civic responsibilities, and the rights citizens are entitled to uphold. This gap leaves large segments of the population vulnerable to misinformation, political manipulation, and partisan oversimplification.
A useful historical parallel can be drawn from Ancient Greek democracy. Despite its celebrated democratic ideals, political influence in Athens often tilted heavily toward the wealthy and well-educated: only those who could afford the time and resources needed to become skilled orators and hold public office really shaped policy and debate. This example underscores a timeless truth: democracy cannot function effectively when knowledge, civic capacity, and access to information are unevenly distributed among the electorate.
In this light, consider what happened in Guyana’s 2025 elections. Businessman Azruddin Mohamed, leading a brand-new party—We Invest in Nationhood (WIN)—dramatically displaced the long-standing opposition establishment (A Partnership for National Unity, or APNU), winning 16 seats to become the main opposition. His rapid rise illustrates both the promise and peril of a democracy in which political power can pivot sharply when voters respond to charismatic messaging—but without necessarily engaging deeply with policy or institutional substance.
Mohamed’s ascent raises a number of questions. Does his success reflect a well-informed electorate, capable of critically assessing his platform on issues like oil-revenue policy, resource management, and government accountability? Or does it reflect a system in which voters, with limited civic education, rally around a figure because of personality, wealth, or populist appeal — rather than because they understand the complex trade-offs involved in national governance? Without greater constitutional literacy, citizens may not fully appreciate the significance of checks and balances, the scope of governmental power, or their own civic rights.
The EU EOM’s omission of this deeper analysis is a serious oversight. Any credible assessment of electoral integrity must look beyond administrative mechanics and examine the conditions under which democratic choice is actually exercised. Without robust civic education programmes—grounded in constitutional rights, democratic principles, and objective policy understanding—no election can truly claim to reflect the informed will of the people.
I therefore urge future observer missions, civil society organizations, and relevant Guyanese authorities to prioritize nationwide civic education initiatives. These must focus not only on improving constitutional awareness and expanding understanding of citizens’ rights, but also on building greater literacy on the socioeconomic, energy, environmental, and geopolitical forces that shape Guyana’s future. Only then can we ensure that our democracy rests not on ritual voting, but on informed participation.