These old political games that they play — Jamil Changlee — Opinion

These old political games that they play

September 2, 2026·2 min read

Dear Editor,

After a very publicised meeting and several days of waiting the WIN and APNU have issued a joint statement^[1] that leaves much to be desired. The embattled Mr. Norton who has overseen an exodus of talent from within his party after an unwillingness to accept the AFC in partnership^[2] continues to show that he may not be the man for the job. Amid controversy and previous calls for him to step aside Mr. Norton appears to prefer to play the waiting game once again. Although the PNC may lack a succession plan for its leadership the WIN party may not share this weakness. With one foot firmly placed in Guyana and another one that appears to be out of the door, the APNU may be calculating that it can regain its leadership with Azruddin losing his fight against extradition^[3]. However, Mr. Mohamed does have the benefit of a U.S. educated sister as his right-hand confidant who can continue WIN’s bid to lead the country.

Mr. Mohamed’s fight against corruption may be rooted in attempts to make amends for his past or a sincere desire to expose the government’s hypocrisy or both. Either way the people of Guyana will benefit from the pressure being placed on the government to clean up the corruption that is rampant. Mr. Ali on the other hand, whose grip on power and favourability within the electorate has slipped, has an opportunity to take decisive action to address the calls for change within his government. But his inability to act quickly may cost his party’s leadership at the polls. The holding of local government elections (LGE) will clearly show which parties have made gains and which ones are losing relevance within the electorate.

At the end of the day what matters is who our citizens believe they can trust to improve their lives for both the immediate future and the long term. CRG will support the party that is best for our country’s future and only time will tell as the next General Election approaches. In the interim, our nation’s people must be given a chance to have their voices heard. The LGE must take place this year. Otherwise, democracy will begin to lose momentum and the risk of a dictatorship taking hold will increase.

Sincerely,
Jamil Changlee

References

WIN, APNU statement comes days after meeting, rehashes unresolved issues - News Room Guyana — newsroom.gy ↩
A Partnership Unmade: Why APNU and AFC Could Not Coalesce for September 1 - Guyana Business Journal & Magazine — guyanabusinessjournal.com ↩
Court says US extradition process against Guyana's opposition leader can resume | AP News — apnews.com ↩

WIN, APNU statement comes days after meeting, rehashes unresolved issues - News Room Guyana

newsroom.gy · 2026-08-29

# WIN, APNU statement comes days after meeting, rehashes unresolved issues - News Room Guyana Published: 2026-08-29T18:24:30+00:00 Source: newsroom.gy (newsroom.gy) Language: en ## Story A joint statement from We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) on their recent political meeting has been issued days after the two sides met, despite an indication that a statement would be released later the same day. The August 24 meeting brought together delegations led by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and APNU Chairman Aubrey Norton, respectively, to discuss political cooperation and several outstanding matters. However, the statement, dated August 29, largely rehashes the issues that prompted the meeting, including the composition of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), electoral scrutineers, the impasse affecting the Region 10 Regional Democratic Council and nominations to the Local Government Commission. Those matters, according to the statement itself, were not resolved at the meeting. Instead, WIN and APNU said they exchanged views on possible guidelines to govern future engagement between the two sides. WIN is expected to consult its leadership and membership on whether to name a three-member team to work with a three-member APNU team on developing those guidelines. APNU, meanwhile, said it would consult with the other parties in its coalition before selecting its representatives. The statement makes clear that no final decisions were taken on the substantive matters discussed. The delayed release therefore provides little new information on the key issues that were expected to be addressed, particularly the outstanding questions surrounding GECOM and the Local Government Commission. The August 24 meeting was seen as an opportunity for the opposition parties to address those matters and explore closer political cooperation, but the joint statement indicates that the discussions have so far resulted primarily in an agreement to continue consultations. The two sides described the meeting as cordial but stopped short of announcing any substantive agreement.

Source

These old political games that they play in Kaieteur News, September 2, 2026

A Partnership Unmade: Why APNU and AFC Could Not Coalesce for September 1 - Guyana Business Journal & Magazine

guyanabusinessjournal.com · 2026-04-28

It is now more than seven months since the PPP/C’s resounding return to office on September ... 1, 202 ... , and the question that ... among serious people who care about ... is not why the opposition ... . The opposition was going ... against an incumbent flush with oil revenues ... record GDP growth. The harder ... more instructive question is why A Partnership for National Unity ... the Alliance For Change could ... bring themselves to the altar a third time. Why the Cummingsburg Accord of 2015 could not be rewritten for 2025 ... Why two parties that had, between them, ... only recent experience ... from office chose ... partnership formally dissolved at the end of 20 ... Leader Khemraj Ramjattan announced ... could govern together ... The two parties agreed in January 2025 to explore rekindling the 2015–2020 coalition, with talks meant to conclude by the end of March. The 31 March deadline passed without agreement. Some weeks later, the talks collapsed publicly: the AFC announced it would contest the general elections on its own; APNU stated it remained willing to re-engage. ... APNU. The AFC, led by Nigel Hughes, declined ... The AFC’ ... over the negotiation: ... wanted Hughes himself; ... it accepted that ... would not demand the presidency; finally ... proposed a consensus candidate. ... acknowledged that the ... party had proposed former Foreign Affairs ... every compromise nominee ... Second, the division of ministerial and parliamentary positions. The AFC put forward a proposal for a 60–40 power-sharing ... , with 60 percent of positions held by APNU representatives. APNU would not move from a 70–30 split, with AFC taking the lower share. Ten percentage points. ... was the Maginot Line of the negotiation. Neither side moved. ... Read together, these are one dispute. ... are both about the same underlying question: does the ... coalition as a genuine partner, with ... institutional leverage over the presidency and ... , or does ... -enter the ... 20 ... held substantive ministerial posts in the last government but — as its own former coalition colleagues have conceded — had been ... to yield on ... principles, was ... to sign a contract that reproduced that bargain. ... larger vote bank and ... institutional memory of the ... What the collapse ... us is that the Guyanese opposition no longer has a functioning theory of how to win. Any such theory must begin with a simple constraint: no single opposition party, as currently constituted, can win a national election on its own. Coalition is not one strategy among many. It is the only viable path to power. The Cummingsburg Accord worked, in 2015, because both parties believed the coalition was a vehicle for defeating an incumbent that had overstayed its welcome. The premise of that accord was instrumental: the coalition existed to do something. By 2025, after the 2015–2020 governing record and the 2020 electoral crisis, neither party could articulate — to itself or to the public — what the coalition was for, beyond its own continued relevance. The negotiations broke over percentages because the parties had nothing larger than percentages to negotiate over. ... September 1, 2025 was not the end of a political cycle. It was, if we are serious, the beginning of a reckoning. The lesson of September 1 is not simply that the coalition failed. It is that its absence cannot be compensated for. No amount of post-election maneuvering, no late-stage alignment, no strategic improvisation can substitute for pre-election coordination in a proportional system with multiple entrants. The coalition must exist before the vote — or it does not exist at all.