Last week I was requested to give an opinion on a coalition proposal between Mr. Azruddin Mohammed and a group of political parties and activists, and while I was unwilling to do so, I made the following observation. ‘Mr. Mohammed has recently admitted that he sought the president’s help in undermining the authority of the GRA [Guyana Revenue Authority] and now he wants us to give him the president’s job!’ What this event suggested and what motivated this essay is the almost total absence of political morality in contemporary Guyana.
Man is a conscious social and political being and from time immemorial there has been concern about how society is administered, more specifically about the relationship between the political and moral realms. Political ethics encompasses the principles, values, and standards that dictate what is right and wrong in political action.
Since the 4th century BC in his ‘Politics’, Aristotle told us that politics is the master science on which all branches of human activity depend and thus the proper aim of politics is the development of moral virtue. ‘Politics takes the greatest care in making the citizens to be of a certain sort, namely good and capable of noble actions.’ According to him, the statesman is a craftsman or scientist who designs a legal system that enshrines universal principles, and the politician’s task is to maintain and reform the system when necessary. The science of the political includes more than drafting good laws and institutions for the city-state; it must also create a system of moral education for its citizens.
The relationship between ethics and politics is complex, but both play a critical role in shaping society and its progress. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of political ethics at every level in Guyana. Criminal behaviour, conflicts of interests, highly questionable external and internal undemocratic meanderings, etc., are simply brushed aside as political parties, individuals and their supporters jostle for power.
It is as if the entire population has read and adopted the contrary moral stance expressed in 1513 by Niccolò Machiavelli. He argued in ‘The Prince’ that morality has no place in politics. He recommended that ‘a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things which are considered good in men, being often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion.’
Recently, Transparency International Guyana Inc. (TIGI) called on President Ali and Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo to publicly address the ‘disturbing claims’ made by Mohamed over the alleged high-level involvement in the tax matter concerning the controversial importation of a Lamborghini. TIGI was ‘disturbed’ by Mohamed’s assertion that he approached both Jagdeo and Ali regarding the clearance of the luxury vehicle. Mohamed alleges that it was Ali who eventually intervened when the GRA initially resisted registering the vehicle. TIGI expressed concern about the lack of transparency surrounding the entire affair and said it expects ‘clear, unambiguous statements’ from both the president and the vice president (SN: 05/06/2025).
In the said article, Mr. Christopher Ram even more scathingly weighed into the issue and provided an important reminder: ‘Such a remarkable tolerance for impropriety is inconsistent with the rule of law. It is unacceptable in any serious, democratic country. We need to be reminded that the constitutional immunity does not cover corruption.’
I would be surprised if TIGI ever received the ‘clear, unambiguous statements’ it requested, and Mr. Ram, Guyana is designated an autocratic state and ‘remarkable tolerance for impropriety and being inconsistent with the rule of law is the hallmark of autocratic regimes. What is surprising is that nowhere in the article was any consideration given to the possible moral and legal culpability of Mr. Mohammed: this is particularly important in view of his aspiring to the presidency! Also, I was of the view that it is the duty of law enforcement agencies to seize the opportunity to deal with a crime whenever it is exposed. If that is so, let me ask a stupid question: where are the law enforcement authorities in Guyana?
As the basis for a present-day intervention, I recommend the liberal democratic aspirations outlined by the late John Rawle in his 1971 ‘A Theory of Justice’. Rawle, was perhaps the leading Western political philosopher of the second half of the last century. He argued for what he called ‘justice as fairness’, which he deduced from a hypothetical but fair initial choice situation called ‘the original position’. Deprived of specific knowledge of their own situation, the parties in the ‘original position’ would be forced to reason impartially, and they would agree to principles of justice that required an equal scheme of basic rights and liberties, fair equality of opportunity, and an egalitarian distribution of wealth and positions of authority. These principles he then used to evaluate the workings of social structures.
The intervention of TIGI and Ram is another reminder to Guyanese that the system in which we live is largely unaccountable, and I feel at liberty to expand upon Aristotle’s mandate and call on all Guyanese to address the important question of why this is so and what is the solution. This column has repeatedly argued that to counteract the ethnic political tendency of bicommunal Guyana, the oligarchs who inhabit the PPP are unwilling to share political power and have thus chosen autocracy/dictatorship.
At the 2025 United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group Universal Periodic Review of the political situation in Guyana, the Carter Centre, recognising Guyana’s structural ethnic difficulties, again urged the political leaders to commit to moving forward with an inclusive and representative reform process. ‘A constitutional reform process that is inclusive, transparent, and durable is critical to improving governance and accountability, building consensus on key development issues facing the nation—such as revenue-sharing from oil production—strengthening social cohesion, and increasing civic engagement in the political process.’
Among other things, the Centre also repeated the call made in its report on Guyana’s 2020 elections. ‘The Carter Centre urges Guyana’s political leaders to commit to reform its longstanding ‘winner-takes all’ election system.’ It ‘stated that the structure of Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), replicated political divisions and inhibited the effective and transparent administration of elections. It noted that the method of appointing GECOM commissioners gave GECOM a partisan structure, advantaged the major parties and excluded smaller parties. Constitutional reform should be an urgent priority, and key reforms should be completed well before the next general election’ (Summary of stakeholders’ submissions on Guyana).
As we proceed to elections, the democratic deficit is glaring, and Mr. Ram puts it well. ‘President Ali’s corruption tolerance spans governments, marshalling dark money and state resources to maintain power. With no campaign finance laws or party regulation, his ruling party operates as one of the country’s most lawless organisations, raising millions from unaccounted sources while blurring the lines between state, party and private funds. Organisations like the Procurement Commission, the Integrity Commission, SOCU and other arms of the state are rendered toothless by his Administration. Silence is rewarded handsomely. Votes are bought with state resources, unlawful tax benefits are granted to friends, cushy jobs are offered in Commissions and state agencies for doing nothing’ (op cit).
I hope that the international community, Caricom and others who were at the forefront of the ‘struggle for democracy’ in 2020 have not now abdicated their position as we proceed to elections without serious reforms, thus making an autocratic outcome inevitable!
