Dear Editor,
Power, when divorced from legitimacy, becomes addiction — irrational, destructive, and shamelessly self-serving. What we are now witnessing with the APNU’s obstinate refusal to let go of its control over the opposition-appointed seats at the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is precisely that: a last, desperate clutch at political oxygen by a coalition suffocating under its own irrelevance.
Azruddin Mohamed, the new Leader of the Opposition under the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) Party, is acting squarely within constitutional and moral right to reorganize representation on GECOM. With WIN now constitutionally recognized as the official opposition, the mantle to advise on commissioners naturally passes to Mohamed. Yet, though suffering from an unprecedented electoral trouncing, the resistance from APNU-leaders and nominated commissioners — Vincent Alexander, Charles Corbin, and Desmond Trotman — reeks not of principle, but of political preservation disguised as constitutional sanctity.
Let’s be plain: this is not about safeguarding democracy or ensuring continuity. It’s about safeguarding access — to influence, to decision-making, and inevitably, to money and power. The rhetoric of “permanent commissions” is being weaponised to disguise a more self-serving reality: that those who have been dislodged from political leadership want to retain institutional leverage long after their electoral expiration date has passed. It’s the political equivalent of squatting — occupying space without right or relevance.
For years, Guyana’s politics has suffered the burdens of this manipulative duality — parties invoking constitutionalism when it suits their agenda, only to trample its intent when the tides turn. The Constitution was never meant to be a refuge for political relics. It was intended as a living framework for national progress, adaptive to the people’s evolving will. But the current stalemate shows that the “living” has gone out of it; what remains is a brittle text too easily exploited by those who thrive on ambiguity.
This duplicity inflicts real damage. It clogs governance with bad faith negotiations, taints the credibility of oversight institutions, and alienates citizens who already distrust the political elite. Every refusal to give up what has been lost democratically is an insult to those who voted precisely to change it. Guyanese have spoken — loudly, clearly, and courageously — through their ballots, replacing the old oppositional order with WIN. Yet, APNU insists on behaving as though the electorate never existed, as though the people’s verdict is a suggestion instead of a command.
This arrogance, wrapped in constitutional pretense, must not go unchallenged. If we fail to assert the primacy of the people’s mandate over the opportunism of the few, we risk normalizing a system where elections change nothing and entrenched elites remain in charge regardless of outcome. That is not democracy — it’s a façade held together by procedural technicalities and self-interest.
Guyana stands at a crossroads. The controversy over GECOM’s composition is not simply a personnel issue; it’s a constitutional stress test. We must seize this moment to reform our laws so that they cannot be stretched, twisted, or exploited by political incumbents unwilling to accept defeat. The Constitution must once again become the strong spine of governance, not the soft skin of manipulation. Let the message be clear: legitimacy is not inherited — it is conferred by the people and withdrawn when abused. The attempt by a defunct opposition to remain relevant through institutional hijacking reveals not only desperation but decay. And for the sake of Guyana’s democratic future, decay must be cleaned out, not accommodated.