By Mark DaCosta- Concerns have escalated in our country as the Carter Center, the internationally respected electoral monitoring body, has issued stern warnings regarding the treatment of political candidates and their supporters ahead of the upcoming elections. The Centre’s assessment highlights a troubling atmosphere fuelled by allegations of intimidation and a marked suppression of political dissent that could undermine the democratic integrity of our electoral process.
In a recent statement, the Carter Center pointed to evidence of fear permeating the ranks of public sector employees, various community members, and local business owners. These individuals reportedly feel threatened by potential job losses or diminished economic opportunities should they fail to outwardly align themselves with the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP). Such tactics have raised grave concerns over the fascist culture that seems to be taking hold in our nation’s political landscape.
At the heart of this controversy are the local banks that have seemingly adopted an overly cautionary approach to comply with U.S. sanctions levied against Azruddin Mohamed, the presidential candidate for the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party. Since these sanctions were implemented — notably against Mohamed, his father, and their associated enterprises for allegations of corruption — three primary commercial banks in our country took drastic action. This involved closing the personal accounts of roughly 40 individuals connected to WIN, a move described by the Centre as an infringement upon the right to political participation.
The Carter Center stressed that these actions have been taken without transparent justification from the banks, leading to speculation that they are merely trying to avoid any potential backlash from secondary sanctions imposed by the U.S. financial system. It noted, “While the Center recognis⁸es the banking sector’s caution, the relevant Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and OFAC standards and guidelines recommend a ‘risk-based’ approach to such matters and discourage overcompliance with practices such as blanket account closures.” These closures not only hinder candidates’ access to financial resources but also send a chilling message to the electorate about engaging with opposition parties.
This situation was further complicated by messages from representatives of the ruling PPP, such as Bharrat Jagdeo, who deflected criticism by claiming that banks were merely exercising their rights to manage financial, legal, and reputational risks. Jagdeo’s retorts betrays a lack of understanding or disregard for the delicate balance between necessary compliance and the duty to uphold citizens’ democratic rights. Meanwhile, Demerara Bank Limited and the Guyana Association of Bankers Inc. have insisted that they act in accordance with regulatory and anti-money laundering requirements, avoiding any direct comment on the impact of their actions on democratic freedoms.
As if these banking actions weren’t sufficient to raise alarm, reports have emerged about the treatment of WIN during the campaign season. Allegations indicate that the party’s presidential candidate has faced significant barriers in conducting campaign activities, including being denied service from local airlines for campaign flights and restricted access to public venues for political meetings. The Centre described the environment as increasingly hostile, warning that these obstacles amount to a violation of the rights to freedom of association and assembly.
An instance involving Azruddin Mohamed’s attempted travel for campaign activities has drawn particular scrutiny; the candidate claimed that Air Services Limited (ASL) barred certain WIN members from boarding flights to a scheduled rally. Although ASL claimed they do not engage in discriminatory practices, the timing of the incident continues to raise questions about the pressures exerted by the ruling People’s Progressive Party (ppp) on private enterprises to limit opposition activities. The claim that no discrimination was intended does little to alleviate fears among the public about the potential collusion of the private sector with a government eager to suppress dissent.
In its robust defence of electoral integrity, the Carter Center has urged all political factions and state agencies to reaffirm individuals’ rights to associate freely and to abstain from any acts that may resemble intimidation. Their clarion call resonates with the growing unease among citizens observing these troubling trends unfold. It restates the vital importance of equitable treatment for all candidates to ensure a fair electoral process.
The shadows of coercive tactics that threaten honest political participation loom large over our nation, with many citizens now questioning the authority and intentions of those in power. The voices of opposition are now being stifled not just by outright intimidation but through insidious financial pressures as well — a double jeopardy faced by those who dare to contest the ruling party. In a troubling indicator of the current political climate, even respectable institutions that serve as the backbone of our society must grapple with the implications of abandoning their constitutional role in favour of acquiescence to government control.
As we stand on the precipice of a critical election, the imperative for all stakeholders in our democracy, from political parties to financial institutions, is clear: uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and the unwavering protection of democratic rights for all our citizens. The role of the private sector, in particular, is now more crucial than ever; firms must remain resolute in refusing to discriminate against those exercising their constitutional rights. The potential ramifications of failing to do so are dire, marking the road toward an increasingly authoritarian governance that can only sow discord and despair among the people of our nation.
