Dear Editor,
If we truly value democracy, we must ask a sober question: If democracy is an issue in Venezuela, then how different is the Guyanese experience today? A careful look at recent developments suggests alarming parallels that demand urgent public scrutiny.
It has been more than four months since Guyana’s 2025 elections, yet the office of Leader of the Opposition remains unfilled. Because of this vacancy, Parliament cannot properly appoint opposition nominees to critical state bodies. The result is a weakened legislative check on government power — a cornerstone of democratic governance. This stagnation empowers the majority party without meaningful contestation. In contrast, Venezuela’s democratic collapse began with the systematic exclusion of opposition leaders from political life, including the disqualification of María Corina Machado from elections and legal persecution of opposition figures — moves that heavily skewed political competition in favour of the incumbent regime.
The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is currently without appointed commissioners, effectively leaving the commission’s most substantive functions in the hands of its Chief Elections Officer. Because the Speaker — aligned with the government benches — controls the process of electing parliamentary leadership and thus opposition nominees, GECOM remains incapacitated by procedural gridlock. A fully constituted and independent electoral body is essential to credible, free elections; without this, public confidence in electoral outcomes is undermined.
This dynamic echoes the experience in Venezuela, where the National Electoral Council (CNE) became an instrument of government control rather than a neutral electoral umpire. The CNE repeatedly disqualified parties and candidates, manipulated voter registration, and failed to release transparent results, contributing to elections that observers widely condemned as neither free nor fair.
Despite being one of the fastest-growing oil economies globally, Guyana faces a stark poverty crisis. International reports estimate that roughly 58 % of Guyanese live in poverty, with about 32 % in extreme poverty, surviving on less than US $3.65 per day — even as oil revenues accumulate.
While direct comparisons must respect context, Venezuela’s experience shows how democratic rights can erode under prolonged economic hardship coupled with political exclusion and state capture: years of crisis left millions in extreme poverty and contributed to one of the largest displacement crises in the world, undermining democratic participation and social cohesion.
In Guyana, there have been reports of security services becoming involved in civic and political functions — including deployments under programmes such as “Men in Mission” and “One Guyana” banner. While national defence forces can support civilian activities, their partisan use erodes the line between legitimate service and political influence and raises fears of militarization of civic space.
In Venezuela, the politicization of the military and allied paramilitary groups — including “colectivos” — was central to maintaining regime control. These forces were routinely deployed to suppress dissent and intimidate citizens, effectively acting as political enforcers rather than neutral defenders of the Constitution.
Freedom of expression in Guyana remains formally protected, yet critics of the government have reported harassment, social and economic pressure, and in some cases legal threats that chill critical voices. This dynamic undermines democratic openness and robust civic debate.
By contrast, in Venezuela freedom of expression is severely constrained, with extensive government surveillance and censorship measures. Critics — including ordinary citizens — faced arbitrary detention, repression, and loss of employment for expressing dissent on social media or public platforms.
Key oversight bodies in Guyana — such as the Integrity Commission, Ethnic Relations Commission, and police oversight mechanisms — are widely perceived as weak, under-resourced, and politically influenced. When institutions meant to enforce transparency and protect rights are compromised, democratic accountability weakens.
Venezuela provides a stark example of institutional breakdown: democratic institutions were gradually hollowed-out, subordinated to the executive, and stripped of legitimacy. Courts, electoral authorities, and legislative bodies became extensions of executive will, eliminating institutional checks and balances.
The increasing politicisation of Guyana’s public sector — including reports of recruitment and service delivery tied to party allegiance — damages meritocracy and citizen trust in governance. A public administration that serves political interests rather than the public good undermines democratic equality and efficient service delivery.
While Guyana has not reached the levels of institutional erosion seen in Venezuela, where the state apparatus was broadly co-opted for partisan ends, the direction of current trends matters. Democracy is not only about holding elections, but also about ensuring that state institutions serve all citizens equitably. Guyana retains democratic structures that Venezuela lost over years of authoritarian consolidation. Yet several patterns — from weakened oversight to institutional dysfunction and economic exclusion — mirror early warning signs observed in Venezuela’s democratic backsliding.
If we cherish our democratic future, we must strengthen our institutions, protect civic freedoms, and ensure that mechanisms of accountability function independently and transparently. Without these actions, the distinction between “we are not Venezuela” and “we could face similar challenges” becomes worryingly narrow.