Today marks a critical juncture in the Alliance for Change (AFC) and People’s National Congress Reform/A Partnership for National Unity (PNCR/APNU) coalition talks as the two sides aim to finalize an agreement to contest the upcoming General and Regional Elections.
To suggest that this negotiation process has been smooth would be an understatement. The path has been fraught with setbacks, unexpected public statements, and palpable tension—most notably from the leaders themselves. Yet, despite these obstacles, good sense has prevailed, and both parties have managed to remain at the negotiation table. This alone is an achievement, but it should not lull either side into complacency.
The AFC, in particular, must recognise the gravity of its current position. Society has not forgotten it was an AFC member who voted with the then opposition, People’s Progressive Party (PPP) in the no-confidence vote, to topple the A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) coalition government. This decision still lingers in the minds of many.
Further, the AFC’s influence and standing today are far from the powerhouse it once was during the days of Raphael Trotman and Khemraj Ramjattan.
Clinging to the illusion of past glory is both unfair and dangerous—especially when one considers the PNC’s institutional strength, ground game, and political infrastructure, which cannot be overlooked in these negotiations.
The AFC, under its current leadership, is not the same force it once was, just as the PNCR under Aubrey Norton is not the same as it was under David Granger. Both sides must face this harsh reality.
Neither party should fall into the trap of arrogance, assuming that one is more important than the other. They are equally important and there are no guarantees in this fragile political landscape. Their shared goal—defeating the PPP—will require unity, collaboration, and a recognition of each other’s strengths, not inflated egos.
The cold, hard truth is that neither leader—the AFC’s Nigel Hughes nor the PNCR’s Aubrey Norton—has the kind of popularity needed to win outright on their own. In the polls conducted by reputable Caribbean outlets, neither of them has shown the kind of support that would guarantee electoral success. Both parties need to come to terms with this reality, or they risk sabotaging their own chances at victory.
Both Norton and Hughes should remember that the coalition’s current parliamentary strength stems from Messrs. David Granger and Moses Nagamootoo, not them. This should serve as a sobering reminder of their standing in the current political landscape.
The public is fed up with the current political climate. The people of Guyana feel that their best interests are being ignored by those in power, and they are increasingly frustrated with the government’s failure to include them in the wealth generated by the country’s resources. President Irfaan Ali’s approval is plummeting, and the opposition must seize this moment to offer a credible alternative.
When AFC leader Nigel Hughes offered to step aside for a consensus presidential candidate, he showed a rare and commendable sense of selflessness. It was a gesture reminiscent of former PNCR Leader, Robert Corbin, who stepped aside for a candidate that boosted the party’s chances in the 2011 and 2015 elections. This willingness to put the country above personal ambition should not be underestimated—it speaks to the kind of leadership Guyana desperately needs.
Supporters of the opposition, the undecided voters, and even the PPP’s own base are all watching closely. The stakes have never been higher, and there are those who would like to see the process fail. But let it be clear: this is not about individual politicians or their egos. This is about Guyana and its people. The future of this nation hinges on whether the opposition can come together for the greater good.
As the negotiations continue, one can only hope that both sides will prioritise the nation’s future over personal gain. As former Minister of Finance Winston Jordan aptly said, if it becomes necessary to lock the door and hammer out an agreement, then so let it be. And if it requires extending the time to conclude the negotiation, the public will understand and provide the necessary space to get it done. Guyana cannot afford to waste any more time. The people deserve better, and the opposition must rise to the occasion.
