By Randy Gopaul
President Irfaan Ali’s recent directive to the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) to remain “vigilant” during the upcoming elections is nothing short of a veiled threat against the people of Guyana. His declaration that “no force internal or external” will be allowed to disrupt the electoral process reeks of authoritarianism, raising alarming questions about the government’s intentions and its willingness to weaponize the military against its own citizens.
In a democracy, elections should be a time of civic engagement and free political expression, not a period of military posturing. The GDF’s primary constitutional role is the defense of Guyana’s territorial integrity, especially as the nation faces an existential threat from Venezuela over the Essequibo region. Rather than keeping the armed forces firmly dedicated to safeguarding Guyana from external threats, President Ali is attempting to use them as a political tool—an intimidating force aimed at silencing dissent and creating an illusion of stability. This is a blatant misuse of power. The military should take heed that the International Court of Justice at The Hague has a track record of holding individuals accountable for ‘crimes against humanity,’ even when they were merely following orders from their superiors.
The Guyanese people have every reason to be outraged. The last thing this country needs is a government using military force as a political tool. History is littered with examples of leaders who invoked “security” to justify military intervention in political affairs, rarely does it end well. In fact, this rhetoric sounds eerily familiar to the days when despots used state security forces to ensure their continued grip on power. Is this the path Ali intends to take? Will uniformed officers be standing guard at polling stations, subtly influencing voter turnout? Will peaceful demonstrators be met with military force under the guise of “maintaining peace and order”? What will his precious investors think of this unsettling move towards authoritarian rule?
Guyana’s past elections have been marred by allegations of electoral fraud, political violence, and instability. This administration should be focused on ensuring a transparent, credible, and peaceful election process, including the implementation of biometrics, not instilling fear in the electorate. If President Ali is so concerned about democracy, he should start by guaranteeing the independence of electoral institutions, ensuring fair media coverage, and allowing civil society organizations to monitor the process freely. Instead, he is making it clear that the military will be on standby, ready to act, not against foreign threats, but against the very people they are sworn to protect. What if leaders of the opposition instead charged members of the military to protect first their mothers, grandmothers, aunts and uncles against any undemocratic actions by the government of Guyana during elections? A slippery slope to civil unrest can easily be created. The military should stay out of local politics.
Let’s be clear, directing the military to play a role in an election is a dangerous and unacceptable precedent. It risks turning the armed forces into an extension of the ruling party, a politicized entity rather than an institution dedicated to national defense. Once a government normalizes the use of military force in electoral matters, the line between democracy and dictatorship begins to blur.
The GDF must remember its true mandate. The soldiers of Guyana are not political pawns; they are defenders of the nation’s sovereignty. Their allegiance is to the Constitution, not to any government or political figure. The people of Guyana should not have to fear their own military.
If President Ali genuinely believes in democracy, he should retract this reckless directive immediately. Guyana deserves elections free from intimidation and military interference. Anything less is a betrayal of the democratic principles he claims to uphold.
