Opposition boycott cannot be excused

Dear Editor,

At some point, political opposition stopped being principled scrutiny and became obstruction for obstruction’s sake. The recent decision by members of Guyana’s parliamentary Opposition to boycott an engagement between President Dr. Irfaan Ali and the Parliamentary Sub-Committee on Foreign Relations should concern every Guyanese, regardless of political affiliation.

This was no cocktail reception. It was no partisan rally. It was an opportunity for elected parliamentarians to engage the Head of State on matters affecting Guyana’s national interest, including the Venezuela border controversy before the International Court of Justice^[1] and the agreement concerning third-country nationals^[2].

What purpose does an Opposition serve if it refuses the opportunity for constructive dialogue?

Leadership is demonstrated by entering difficult rooms for meaningful and serious dialogue, not avoiding them. Political maturity demands engagement with persons with whom one may profoundly disagree. Indeed, that is precisely when engagement becomes critical.

The absence of a shared agenda and supporting documentation cannot reasonably excuse disengagement when issues of obvious national importance are to be discussed. Attend the meeting. Put the procedural objection on record. Demand the documents. Ask the uncomfortable questions. Require answers. Then report to the country.

That is what an effective Opposition would have done.

Walking away accomplishes none of those things.

This episode is particularly troubling when considered against the recent conduct of the Opposition parties themselves. Guyanese recently watched APNU and WIN hold highly anticipated talks concerning important disputes over Opposition representation, GECOM, the Local Government Commission and the Region Ten impasse^[3], only for the engagement to conclude without final decisions on the substantive matters.

This reflects a disturbing, yet familiar political pattern: hesitation where decisiveness is needed, procedural manoeuvring where substantive leadership is required, and political posturing at a time when national interest demands maturity.

For the PNCR and its leadership, this should occasion serious introspection.

The PNCR is not a new political organisation struggling to understand the machinery of government. It is one of Guyana’s oldest political parties. It has governed this country. It has occupied the Opposition benches. It possesses decades of institutional experience. Guyanese, therefore, have every right to expect a level of political maturity from its leadership commensurate with that history.

Yet maturity is not demonstrated by refusing engagement because the political circumstances are inconvenient.

There is nothing courageous about remaining outside a meeting room while complaining about what may be happening inside it. Political courage would have meant sitting across from President Ali and engaging him directly on the matters of national interest.

Show up. That is leadership.

This increasingly sterile politics of disengagement embraced by WIN and APNU is reflective for their inability to move beyond social media theatrics and political grandstanding.

An Opposition cannot credibly complain that it is being marginalised while voluntarily vacating spaces in which its voice can be heard.

More importantly, Opposition parliamentarians do not occupy their seats merely as representatives of WIN, APNU, the PNCR or any other political organisation. They sit in the National Assembly because citizens voted for them.

Every empty Opposition chair at an engagement on a matter of national importance, therefore, represents more than a political tactic. It demonstrates a failure to rise above partisan differences.

That is why this conduct is irresponsible.

Consider the Venezuela controversy. This is an existential national issue transcending party politics. Guyana’s territorial integrity cannot become collateral damage in domestic political gamesmanship. On matters involving our sovereignty and security, and the defense of our territorial integrity, Government and Opposition, and indeed all of Guyana, must speak with seriousness and purpose, and with one voice. Regrettably, the Opposition’s abandonment of its national duty at a moment when Guyana’s sovereignty demands unity, responsible engagement and an unequivocal national voice, is not new. During the 2025 debate on Venezuela’s claim to Guyana’s Essequibo territory^[4], when Venezuela’s conduct posed a continuing threat to Guyana’s sovereignty, the then Opposition, in a demonstration of tactical political misjudgment, walked out of the National Assembly.

A responsible Opposition should want more information, not less; more engagement, not strategic absence.

Politics cannot simply be the art of saying “no”.

A viable Opposition must demonstrate that it possesses the judgment, discipline and intellectual confidence to sit at a table, absorb information, analyse competing positions, negotiate where necessary and make difficult decisions.

Repeatedly avoiding engagement creates precisely the opposite impression.

It suggests a politics afraid of scrutiny because serious engagement carries a burden: once you enter the room, slogans are no longer enough. Questions must be intelligent. Arguments must withstand rebuttal. Alternatives must be workable. Leaders must demonstrate command of the issues.

Walking away is easier.

Guyana deserves an Opposition that understands that opposition is a constitutional responsibility, not a permanent protest posture.

If a political organisation cannot manage that responsibility from the Opposition benches, Guyanese are entitled to ask how it proposes to manage the infinitely greater responsibilities of government.

There is also a deeper democratic danger.

When PNCR/APNU and WIN place tactical advantage above institutional engagement, the people become spectators to political theatre rather than beneficiaries of representative democracy. Citizens did not elect these parliamentarians simply to issue press releases explaining why they would not participate. They elected them to participate, scrutinise, challenge, negotiate and represent.

References

1. Guyana expects ICJ ruling in Venezuela border case early next year — www.caribbeannationalweekly.com ↩
2. No Opposition MP attends Foreign Relations committee meeting with President Ali - News Room Guyana — newsroom.gy ↩
3. First round of APNU, WIN talks end without agreement on GECOM, Local Government Commission issues - News Room Guyana — newsroom.gy ↩
4. Opposition Leader, Prime Minister differ on consultation on parliamentary resolution against Venezuela’s land claim – Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana — demerarawaves.com ↩