Dear Editor,
President Irfaan Ali’s brazen decision to deliver his inaugural address for a second term outside the walls of Parliament — and to deliberately exclude the duly elected Opposition MPs from the audience — stands as a grave assault on the democratic norms of our Republic. In choosing the lawns of the Arthur Chung Convention Centre, the very building where the National Assembly sits, he staged a cynical performance — symbolism without substance, ceremony without legitimacy. Laying out his vision for the nation for this terms, must not go unnoticed for the distinct act of exclusion. This act was not only undignified; it was calculated, sending a subtle yet unmistakable message that his “One Guyana” rhetoric is mere camouflage for an exclusionary, vindictive style of governance. It exposes the duplicity of a leader who preaches unity while practicing division, and leaves the nation to wonder: is this the grim preview of how he intends to rule in his second term?
Editor history will not forget that on this occasion, President Irfaan Ali chose to break with a sacred democratic tradition — delivering what has always been a parliamentary address outside of sacred chamber itself. This was no mere change of venue; it was a deliberate calculation to exclude the parliamentary opposition and silence the voices of thousands of Guyanese they represent. The President’s decision to stage this address on the lawns of the Arthur Chung Convention Centre — while Parliament remains shuttered, without an appointed Leader of the Opposition — is not symbolic happenstance. It is a clear act of political orchestration, timed and tailored to avoid engagement with an Opposition Leader currently entangled in extradition proceedings. This diversion from conven-tion effectively turns a constitutional duty into partisan theatre.
For decades, Guyanese Presidents of every stripe have opened Parliament in the chamber itself, before both sides of the House, in the presence of the diplomatic corps and civil society. That setting has always affirmed a simple truth: that no matter our divisions, the authority of Parliament stands above any one man or party. By sidestepping that process, President Ali has not only diminished the dignity of the office he holds but also sent a dangerous message — that executive convenience now trumps constitutional propriety. Worse yet, the diplomatic community’s quiet acceptance of this maneuver emboldens the erosion of democratic accountability. Their silence suggests complicity. If they will not defend the sanctity of Guyana’s Parliament, then the duty falls upon us — the people — to insist that democracy cannot exist without an active and functioning opposition, without legisla-tive oversight, and without debate in the chambers of our elected representatives.
We must call this what it is: the slow suffocation of parliamentary governance. A democracy without debate is a democracy in name only. And when the President can lay out his national agenda on a public lawn — absent those elected to question, to challenge, and to represent the other half of the nation — we are perilously close to a one-party state, no matter what slogans are recited from the podium. The President may claim “One Guyana,” but his actions speak of exclusion, not unity. This calculated diversion from parliamentary custom is more than a breach of tradition; it’s a betrayal of the constitutional soul of our Republic.