Dear Editor,
In this new era of our political culture, we are constantly witnessing the proliferation of misinformation, which has become one of the most corrosive forces undermining our democratic and progressive discourse. Several days ago presented yet another example of the lowest ebb in public behaviour on social media by fellow Guyanese: the deliberate sharing of fabricated rumours, false propaganda, and sensationalised narratives targeting one of Guyana’s most prominent and consequential/important political figures. No matter if you love or hate him, no one can deny his significant contributions towards our country’s development in the past and at present, Honourable Bharrat Jagdeo.
This episode, propagated by known social media actors, though regrettable, is emblematic of a broader phenomenon where individuals lacking relevance or a sense of importance, or who are incapable of or choose not to make genuine and positive public contributions, resort to digital manipulation and cyberbullying in an attempt to manufacture visibility, accumulate online engagement, or convert controversy into monetised attention.
Such conduct is not merely intellectually dishonest; it is socially destabilising. The deliberate construction and promotion of falsehoods reflects a troubling departure from the ethical commitment that should guide public debate. Individuals who engage in these practices exploit the vulnerabilities of the digital information ecosystem where algorithms reward outrage, where speed eclipses accuracy, and truth is often overshadowed by theatricality. When the desire for personal gain, be it real or superficial, supersedes honesty and civic responsibility, the outcome is a polluted information landscape that weakens public trust, devalues meaningful political dialogue, threatens the integrity of governance, and brings the public to question the credibility of those individuals, “straight up.”
The craving impulse to create mischief through scandals, manufactured lies, stories, and innuendo arises from a deeper crisis of relevance. Those who lack substantive ideas, professional or personal achievements, or meaningful contributions to national development often rely on negativity as a surrogate for importance. By generating false narratives and controversy, they momentarily satisfy their desire for attention, even if it comes at the expense of truth, damage to a person’s image, character, their family and business, or general public cohesion. Their tactics, however, reveal more about their own inadequacies and insecurities than about the individuals they attempt to malign.
Last week, we saw what appeared to be not one but coordinated attempts to defame Guyana’s Vice President, who remains fully engaged in the rigorous task of helping to steer the administration, plan and prepare the nation’s national budget, and execute critical governmental responsibilities for the country’s continued development and its people’s advancement during these challenging times.
These actions clearly underscore the disconnect between political reality and online sensationalism. While these misinformation merchants chase fleeting digital gratification from likes and shares, the national leadership continues the more demanding and consequential work of governance for our people and country. Their efforts cannot and will not be derailed by the noise of unsubstantiated and vacuous claims.
From my vantage point, the persistence of such attacks reinforces the need for robust civic education, digital literacy, institutional mechanisms, and legislative reform to safeguard the public sphere against such manipulative and dangerous narratives. The antidote to falsehood is not merely rebuttal, but a collective reaffirmation of truth as a democratic value.
Truth possesses the sustainability that fabrication lacks. False narratives may flare quickly, but they collapse under scrutiny; progress, on the other hand, endures.
Further, the new neophyte opposition has equally exhibited a willingness to embrace misinformation as a political tool is emblematic of a strategic void, an admission that substantive policy alternatives, credible leadership, or a demonstrable developmental vision are grossly lacking.
Such a posture not only undermines their own legitimacy as a suitable alternative but also distances them further from the electorate. A “political movement” that relies on distortion as its primary currency cannot expect to earn public confidence in the long term, let alone govern effectively. If such behaviour persists, it will not merely delay their desire to hold and lead in public office; it will entrench their irrelevance as a so-called “political movement.”
Ultimately, the truth is resilient. Governance is measured not by online theatrics, but by the tangible and intangible national outcomes: economic growth, social stability, infrastructural development and transformation, an improved quality of life for the citizenry in a stable and safe environment. These are the domains in which the President, Prime Minister, Vice President, and the administration continue to apply disciplined focus to achieve and maintain. It is quite clear that no volume of propaganda can or will overshadow their sustained performance.
In the long arc of political history, lies are temporary, but tangible and intangible development is permanent. Those who invest in falsehoods will remain on the periphery of national development, observers rather than architects, critics rather than contributors. And unless they recalibrate toward integrity, constructive analysis, constructive criticism, truth, and substance that can make offerings better and hold those in office accountable for their stewardship, their place on the opposition benches may very well extend far beyond the foreseeable political horizon.