Dear Editor,
I have lived through enough election cycles to recognise when an argument looks tidy on paper but collapses the moment it touches the ground. The European Union’s final report on the 2025 elections sits in that uncomfortable space. It praises the process, professionalism, reforms, peaceful atmosphere, and competence of polling staff. Then it pivots to the familiar refrain: the “advantage of incumbency,” as if good governance must be treated as a form of misconduct once an election year arrives.
According to the report, the government must slow down to avoid appearing competitive. Officials would have to avoid visiting communities that rely on support, shelve projects already budgeted, and curb routine state work—all because someone might call it an “advantage.” Ribbon-cutting ceremonies? Too risky. Hospitals opening? Off-limits. Subsidies for farmers? A scandal waiting to happen. The only way to stay “balanced” is to become invisible.
This is not how democracies function. Governments in Europe campaign on results. They launch programs, highlight achievements, cut ribbons, and claim credit for their work. Nobody pauses progress to soothe the opposition. The public judges a government by what it delivers, not by how quietly it retreats before an election. Here, doing the job too well is treated as inherently suspicious.
Ironically, many of the actions the EU labels as “advantages” are standard for any political party. Opposition parties also make house calls, run programs, and actively court votes. The WIN party went as far as buying votes. Only the government is flagged. Meanwhile, numerous media outlets openly support the opposition, amplifying their messages without restraint, while the report barely notices. Treating routine activity by the incumbent as suspicious is absurd and unfair.
The EU report doesn’t explicitly call for an operational freeze. It recommends clearer rules on state resources and campaign conduct. That is reasonable; transparency benefits every country. Yet the section on incumbency insinuates that doing one’s job properly during an election is suspicious by default. That interpretation risks undermining the very institutions the observers praised.
This is the contradiction sitting at the center of the document. You cannot applaud the reforms of 2022, admire the technical improvements, endorse the training, and validate the smooth administration of the polls, then imply that the governing side should have done less governing to preserve the appearance of balance. A country cannot mature democratically by weakening its own executive functions every five years.
What Guyana must not do is embrace a model where governance becomes handicapped during campaign season. The electorate deserves continuity of development. Schools, roads, hospitals, and social programs are not “incumbency perks.” They are the work of a government fulfilling its mandate. Treating them as advantages confuses diligence with wrongdoing.
Undoubtedly, the EU remains a valued partner. Its observations deserve serious attention. Yet certain recommendations carry hidden implications. If democracy depends on progress, then progress cannot be treated as a liability once the calendar turns toward an election. The country has come too far to entertain that paradox. Good governance is not cheating. It is expected. A thriving democracy is measured by what it delivers, not by how quietly it steps aside.
If doing one’s job during an election is now considered a scandal, then maybe the only safe form of governance is complete inactivity. Maybe everyone, voters included, should curl up in their beds on election day and wait for the ballots to be counted. That way, nobody, not a soul, can ever be accused of having an advantage.