President Irfaan Ali must not only talk the talk, but he must also walk the talk. His September 7th swearing-in address was filled with lofty promises to the people of Guyana—people he is constitutionally bound to serve without fear, favour or ill will, whether they voted for him or not. The President’s salary is paid by all citizens, and so too must be his service.
Even the casual observer would recognise the President’s address borrowed heavily from the campaign platforms of other political parties and echoed many of the long-held positions of civil society. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But Guyanese don’t just want a president who parrots the ideas of others, they want one who delivers. Attribution is not the issue; action is.
Yet it is most unfortunate that less than two weeks after pledging to build a society that includes all, as outlined in our nation’s political objectives, the President now appears to be undermining citizen input through their elected local representatives.
Guyana’s Constitution, Article 13 expressly states:
“The principal objective of the system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.”
With inclusionary democracy enshrined in the supreme law, it is not for any government to decide whether or not to honour it. This is a constitutional obligation. The electorate has a duty to hold the Government and Opposition accountable to it.
Those who speak of inclusionary democracy only when it suits them, or use it to beat others into submission, are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of their constitutional role, and a dangerous disregard for the rights of others in society.
No reasonable person would argue against the fact that Georgetown needs urgent attention. But those who have followed how this central government has treated local democratic organs, particularly those outside its control, know full well the playbook—starve them of resources, undermine their authority, and bypass their mandates.
Any plan to revitalise Georgetown must involve City Hall, which is legally empowered to govern the affairs of the city. This is not merely a matter of courtesy. It is a matter of law. The functioning of local democracy and citizen participation must be respected. Development that comes at the expense of constitutional rights is not development. It is overreaching. It is contempt.
And those in the private sector who are quick to heap praise on the President’s decisions must also be quick to remind him of the importance of upholding constitutional principles. If they are serious about building a nation under the motto “One People, One Nation, One Destiny,” they must be willing to challenge decisions that undermine that goal.
The workers and communities who have fought for self-governance and the right to vote did not do so to have their voices silenced by central interference dressed up as development.
President Ali must be reminded that Article 75 of the Constitution clearly states:
“Parliament shall provide that local democratic organs shall be autonomous and take decisions which are binding upon their agencies and institutions, and communities and citizens of their areas.”
Local government is not just about holding elections every few years or having councils hold statutory meetings. It carries the responsibility to manage community development, identify and collect revenue, and ensure transparent governance on behalf of the people. The Constitution gives this legitimacy.
Article 76 states that Parliament may provide for regional democratic councils to raise their own revenues and spend them for the benefit and welfare of their areas. Article 77 further requires that each region’s development programme must be integrated into the national plan, with government allocating funds to support implementation.
The Constitution of Guyana promises “a system of governance based on democratic values, social justice, fundamental human rights and the rule of law.” That promise must not be trampled on under the pretext of expediency. It must be honoured in both spirit and practice.
Guyanese people are not unreasonable. They are not opposed to development. But they will not accept that development be used as a cover to erode their democratic rights or bypass their elected representatives.
President Ali must govern not according to political convenience, but according to the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. That document is not a suggestion. It is supreme law.
