Jagdeo’s overtures to APNU may represent revealing moment in Guyana’s political evolution

Dear Editor,

The unscrupulous spectacle of Bharrat Jagdeo courting APNU at the wake of the late Mr. Corbin^[1] speaks volumes about the political quandary that confronts the PPP. It speaks volumes about the character of the Vice President and his profound inability to lay politics and power to rest even for a moment and especially at a wake of a deceased person. A gathering intended to honour the deceased and afford his family the dignity of mourning was instead overshadowed by political manoeuvring. The occasion raises a fundamental question: why is Jagdeo, after years of bitter political rivalry, public attacks and denunciations of APNU, now so eager to pursue political cooperation?

The answer may lie in Guyana’s changing political landscape. The emergence of WIN and the growing political significance of Azruddin Mohamed represent a challenge to the PPP’s long-standing political dominance that Jagdeo and his establishment cannot afford to dismiss. It is evident that they are scared, threatened and grasping at straws to avoid their inevitable collapse.

Guyanese are increasingly questioning the empty promises, political patronage and assurances that have kept the PPP in power for decades. Our citizens are demanding accountability and scrutinizing those in power. A younger generation is watching closely, and it is apparent that the PPP have found themselves in uncharted territory and should not assume the electorate will continue to reward it with their votes.

The decades-long political rivalry between the PPP and APNU is well established. Their relationship has been marked by bitter exchanges, public denunciations and profound political divisions. But Jagdeo now seems prepared to put aside years of enmity to cooperate with APNU. This dramatic shift warrants scrutiny. When a political leader who has continuously attacked a rival suddenly wants its cooperation, the public is entitled to ask whether the motivation is of national interest or political self-preservation.

The circumstances surrounding Jagdeo’s own political history offer further grounds for reflection. Ralph Ramkarran, once a senior PPP Leader, publicly voiced concerns about corruption and governance during Jagdeo’s presidency. His departure from the PPP was ultimately an expression of the underlying tensions of the party’s internal political culture. Similarly, figures such as Khemraj Ramjattan and other younger politicians eventually left the party as differences on leadership and direction grew. This is part of a broader historical debate about the concentration of power, internal party democracy and the consequences of challenging entrenched leadership. Jagdeo’s tenure was marked by significant controversy and tensions with political colleagues, business leaders, senior public officials and other influential institutions.

Jagdeo’s political career can best be understood by looking at the very party structures that facilitated his rise to power. Janet Jagan was key to his leadership within the PPP, supporting his rise to being a leading figure within the party, and ultimately the presidency of Guyana. But the tensions that followed between Jagdeo and senior party figures raise important questions about the nature of political loyalty, succession and the concentration of authority within the party. Of particular note is the incident where, in the presence of disagreements, Jagdeo reminded Janet Jagan that she was a private citizen. This exchange illustrates how political authority can become estranged from the people and institutional relationships that helped give rise to it. This is particularly striking because Janet Jagan was not simply a former president; she was a founding figure of the PPP whose political standing helped shape the party’s leadership and succession. Her own 1999 resignation statement identified Jagdeo as the designated successor under the PPP/C’s previously announced succession arrangement.^[2]

Such episodes raise important questions about the tolerance of dissent and the exercise of political authority. Guyanese must remember these experiences when evaluating present-day political manoeuvres.

APNU should consider this history carefully. This is not an attack on APNU, neither is it an attempt to dictate on what political decisions APNU should take. It is a reminder that political co-operation must be based on principle, transparency and the interests of the people. A party needs to be wary of being used as a tool in another party’s political survival game, especially where the long-term consequences may be the marginalization of a legitimate opposition.

The danger is that the pursuit of political survival may erode democratic representation. Azruddin Mohamed occupies the constitutionally established position of Leader of the Opposition.^[3] Any attempt to bypass that office, to undermine its legitimacy, or to exclude its occupant from meaningful political participation, raises serious questions about democratic accountability. Political alliances are not inherently wrong, but they become problematic when they seem to be aimed at weakening a political rival rather than benefiting the electorate.

The recent shooting at Azruddin Mohamed has exacerbated these fears.^[4] A full independent and transparent investigation is required by the circumstances. No responsible society should prejudge the findings, but equally the public should not dismiss legitimate questions on political safety, law enforcement and the wider climate in which opposition figures operate. Any attack on the life of a political leader, would be an assault, not merely on an individual, but on the democratic rights of the people he represents.

The danger is not only physical violence. Political exclusion, institutional manipulation and marginalisation of legitimate opposition can also undermine democracy. If efforts emerge to diminish Azruddin Mohamed’s political standing through improper means, Guyanese must insist that every action be judged against the principles of constitutionalism, due process and the rule of law.

Jagdeo’s overtures to APNU may therefore represent a revealing moment in Guyana’s political evolution. Whether motivated by genuine cooperation or electoral calculation, they demonstrate the tensions confronting a governing party that can no longer assume unquestioned political loyalty. The PPP’s record of governance, allegations of corruption and concentration of political power warrant serious public scrutiny.

Corruption does not start and thrive at the bottom of government. It also must be examined at the highest levels of political authority, where institutional cultures are set, where accountability is either reinforced or diminished, and where political loyalty may count for more than public responsibility. If corruption is not properly addressed, public trust erodes, and democratic institutions risk being compromised by political interference. And, this corruption epidemic has resulted in mass awakening, the people are no longer fooled. The PPP has lost the trust of the people and their desperate attempts to clinging onto power is evident.

The PPP’s challenge is not simply to find new political partners. It is to restore public confidence in its own conduct. But it is important to note that no amount of political courting can substitute for accountability, transparency and respect for democratic institutions.

Guyana is changing. Citizens are becoming more politically conscious, younger voters are increasingly unwilling to inherit the political loyalties of previous generations, and PPP-inflicted fear is no longer a reliable substitute for public confidence. Guyanese are questioning authority, demanding answers and insisting on a political culture in which criticism is not treated as hostility and dissent is not treated as disloyalty.

Jagdeo may seek new alliances to preserve the PPP’s political position, but he has to understand that no arrangement between political elites can indefinitely override the will of an awakened electorate. APNU must make its own decisions according to its principles and the interests of its supporters. The responsibility for the PPP’s political predicament rests with the PPP itself.

The people of Guyana must be on guard. Elections are not enough to maintain a democracy. It demands independent institutions, constitutional protections, freedom of expression, a meaningful opposition, and a population ready to defend its rights peacefully and resolutely. The PPP could try to re-brand itself through political alliances, but it is important for Jagdeo to know that credibility cannot be bought through political opportunism. It has to be earned with integrity, accountability, transparency and respect for the people.

The message to Jagdeo and the PPP is clear – Guyanese are no longer prepared to surrender their political future to fear, intimidation or backroom deals. The next generation will be judging political parties on their behaviour, not just empty promises.

No political alliance can permanently defeat a people who have awakened to their own power. And no government, however entrenched, is entitled to mistake its time in office for ownership of the nation. Jagdeo’s days of power are numbered, the PPP’s legacy has been shattered, and its dictatorial reign is expiring and they know it.

References

1. Jagdeo reflects on “cordial and respectful” relationship with late Robert Corbin – Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana — demerarawaves.com ↩
2. Ailing Janet Jagan resigns — www.caymancompass.com ↩
3. Azruddin Mohamed formally declared Leader of the Opposition - News Room Guyana — newsroom.gy ↩
4. AFC seeks footage, forensic results in Mohamed shooting case; Walton-Desir urges independent probe of police conduct - Kiskadee Watch — kiskadeewatch.com ↩