Dear Editor,
It is profoundly ironic that the Chronicle Editorial, seeking to dismiss the legitimate concerns of “incumbency advantage” raised by the European Union, was itself published in a state-funded newspaper. This very act demonstrates the precise problem the EU identified: the blurring of lines between state institution and partisan platform. The use of a taxpayer-funded medium to argue that the government’s use of taxpayer-funded resources is beyond reproof is not just circular logic—it is a live demonstration of the unfair advantage that threatens electoral integrity.
Editor, Tuesday’s Editorial piece in the Chronicle, referencing Minister McCoy’s statements in his attempt to dismiss the European Union’s election report, presents a dangerous and grossly misleading conflation of routine governance with the systemic abuse of state power. The argument that labelling “incumbency advantage” a problem is akin to punishing “good governance” is a flawed narrative that seeks to whitewash a serious electoral issue and mislead the Guyanese public.
The core of the matter is being deliberately ignored. The EU report, and any credible electoral observer mission, does not criticize a government for simply governing. No one suggests that hospitals should remain closed or budgeted projects should halt. This is a straw man’s argument designed to distract from the real, documented problem.
The critical distinction—which the editorial conveniently blurs—is between continuing legitimate government work and using the entire state apparatus for partisan campaigning. “Incumbency advantage” is not about building roads; it’s about strategically timing their inauguration for election eve. It’s not about providing services; it’s about conditioning those services on political support, or using the state’s financial resources to flood the airwaves with partisan propaganda disguised as official advertising.
Let us be unequivocally clear:
The Timing and Intent Matter: When a government, after years of delay, suddenly accelerates the commissioning of projects, deliberately effects promotions in select sectors, announces massive new subsidies, promises cash grants and dominates media cycles with state-funded advertisements featuring government officials in the months immediately preceding an election, its primary intent is not neutral public service. It is to create a direct, and often coercive, link between the vote and the provision of state resources. This is not “showcasing a record”; it is an unfair use of the treasury to finance a campaign that the opposition cannot hope to match.
The “Level Playing Field” is a Democratic Necessity: The missive’s claim that it is “undemocratic” to expect a fair playing field is astonishing. Democracy is not a winner-take-all battle where the team in control of the treasury can change the rules of the game. The principle of equity is fundamental. A government has a duty to campaign on its record, but it must do so using its party resources and machinery, not the people’s treasury and state-owned media. To argue otherwise is to endorse a system where the ruling party is permanently entrenched, making a genuine change of government nearly impossible.
The EU’s Credibility is Based on Evidence: The EU Election Observation Mission (EOM) is not a partisan actor. Its final report will detail specific, observable instances where state resources and institutions were leveraged to create an uneven contest. This is not a theoretical concern but a documented practice in many emerging democracies, one that undermines the very integrity of the poll. To dismiss this as a demand for “paralysis” is a willful misinterpretation of a call for fairness.
The editorial’s central plea—”trust citizens to differentiate”—is profoundly cynical. Of course, citizens are intelligent. But their judgment must be based on a free and fair contest of ideas, not on a competition skewed by one side’s unlimited access to public funds and coercive state power. True democracy doesn’t ask citizens to sift through propaganda paid for by their own taxes; it ensures that all contestants have a fair chance to be heard.
The attempt to frame the abuse of incumbency as mere “competence” is a perilous logic that leads down a path of democratic backsliding. We must not be fooled. The EU’s preliminary statement is a vital safeguard for Guyanese democracy, reminding us that a government’s duty is to the entire nation, not just its electoral prospects. Upholding the rules of fair play is not an attack on governance; it is the very defense of democracy itself.