Dear Editor,
The sixtieth anniversary of Guyana, being commemorated in May, 2026, finds Guyana with burgeoning resources from oil and gas, the highest rate of economic growth in the world, a government with a comfortable majority in Parliament, massive infrastructural projects underway, a strident entrepreneurial class getting rich, and many people not yet seeing a difference in their daily lives. The government has been giving occasional hand-outs to help in this regard.
Historically a land of six peoples, Guyana, is now numerically a land of four main groups: Indigenous, African, Indian and Mixed, listed in order of ‘arrival’. None of these four groups has an overall majority and political parties must appeal for support across the groups – which they do, with varying degrees of success.
All three of the main parties in Parliament profess to be national parties, with the governing party claiming that it has a track record in this regard. The principal opposition party, formed shortly before the last general elections, drew support across the groups and theoretically carries promise of building on this accomplishment in the future. But its leader is entangled in legal battles, and it remains unclear whether, or how, it might capitalize on its achievements. The second opposition party, which has been in government in the past, now seems to be in a rebuilding phase whose results must be awaited.
Prior to, as well as after independence, Guyana has seen periods of crises and violence, and all four population groups have memories of such violence. Memories of violence lie mainly within older generations of Guyanese and young people are free of the animus of those memories. Given fair governance and level playing fields they are most likely to get on with their education and to build meaningful lives.
It is possible that a Historical Truth and Reconciliation Commission might help to foster inter-group peace and harmony in Guyana, but there has so far been little or no interest in this on the part of any of the major parties. This is something that the main political parties might wish to reflect upon.
Emphasis on the dignity and equality of every Guyanese would be a good approach to building a new Guyana. Unfortunately, Guyana’s rights bodies do not yet seem to have inspired confidence among the public, and the overarching Human Rights Commission envisaged in the Constitution has never been established.
If, from the foregoing perspectives, one might think that there are promises to be capitalised upon, there are pitfalls to be considered. First, there is the issue of a lack of consensus on the governance system, particularly the continuance of the Executive Presidency. This is something that might be tackled in the Constitutional Commission which was established during the last Parliament but has not yet met.
Second, there is the issue of deep distrust among the three main parties represented in Parliament. To put it simply, there is little, if any¸ interaction among them. This has resulted in little faith in the Government’s professed ‘One Nation’ policy. Theoretically, a President who is viewed as Statesperson of the nation might facilitate communications among the parties represented in Parliament. But where a President is at the heart of the political fray the possibilities of this happening are negated.
Third, one has the impression that the government of the day unnecessarily stumps its own toes. It has a comfortable majority, a vision, a mandate, and policies, but its tone and practices could be softer. The government gives the impression of being in permanent campaign mode. The utterances of its leaders are unnecessarily shrill and combative.
There is no distinction between campaign activists of the governing party and the senior leaders of the Government. Parliament rarely meets and Parliamentary Committees are largely non-functioning. History will probably judge that the government is unnecessarily self-branding itself in an unfavourable light due to the practices and utterances of Goebbelsian acolytes of the Government, including in the government media. All of this is unnecessary and self-harming, and they do not contribute to confidence-building in the body politic – in a still fragile nation.
Pitfalls, thus¸ there are. But promises too. With abundant resources, so much could be done for the betterment of the lives of the Guyanese people and for the world at large. Respectable economists have come out in support of the Government’s economic policies, but there is still a palpable lack of public confidence in the Government’s approach to deploying the resources of the nation in a manner that balances growth and caring for people in need. A national dialogue on this issue, carried out in good faith and with mutual respect, could surely be helpful. All three parties have within their midst talented people who could engage in such a conversation, together with the Guyanese people.
A national vision statement for Guyana could help foster confidence and faith in the future of the nation, one people, one nation, one destiny.
And Guyana must establish arrangements for detecting and responding to the plight of the neediest of its people, the plight of the poorest. Establishing such arrangements will give heart to the needy and will inspire confidence in the system of governance.
Former French President Francois Mitterand sought to rally his nation with the call, ‘Nous avons tant a faire ensemble’: ‘We have much to do together’. Yes, Guyana, we have much to do together as we mark the sixtieth anniversary of Guyana’s independence.