The election of the Leader of the Opposition has exposed a disturbing contempt for democratic norms. Instead of defending the clear constitutional right of non-government members of parliament to freely elect their leader in accordance with Article 184(1), some have chosen to dictate who should be voted for and who must not, hiding behind reasons and excuses that have no grounding in law. This conduct is an affront to the law, an attack on the right to self-determination, and a direct assault on representative democracy.
In any functioning democracy, the law, including the right to vote freely, is sacrosanct. Every non-government Member of Parliament is elected by the people, through a legal process, to exercise judgment in furtherance of the well-being of those they represent and in the interest of society as a whole, not to take instructions from self-appointed power brokers who neither respect democratic principles nor uphold them except when it suits their personal interests. When coercion replaces conscience, the people’s mandate is reduced to a hollow ritual, and the vote itself is stripped of meaning.
At the same time, it is not lost on me that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) engaged in actions during the last General and Regional Elections that undermined the electoral law and the integrity of the process by failing to conclude those elections in accordance with the requirements set out in the Representation of the People Act, a matter to which I shall return at a later time.
That said, the troubling developments surrounding the election of the Leader of the Opposition go well beyond political disagreement. They reflect a readiness to undermine the rule of law whenever it obstructs partisan objectives. Those who now presume to command the votes of others, and those who have erected a convenient legal and moral platform to justify such conduct, should understand that society is not fooled, either by their posture or their intent.
Guyanese can see clearly that this behaviour is not about upholding rights or defending constitutional order. It is about self-serving ambition, raw partisanship, and an unashamed tolerance for lawlessness. Were it otherwise, there would be a firm insistence on adherence to one of the most fundamental tenets underpinning the Constitution and laws of Guyana, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, not a court of public opinion. Instead, we are witnessing a reckless stampede to trample that principle into irrelevance.
The trade union movement understands where this road leads because it has walked it before and continues to walk it every day. Workers remain victims of rights violations, abuse of power, exclusion, and repression, often suffering at the hands of powerful interests while too many others remain silent, fearful, or complicit when justice and fairness demand solidarity and courage.
The historic struggle in this nation for one-man-one-vote, first waged by the trade union movement a century ago in 1926, laid the foundation for the march toward self-determination and internal self-government. That struggle was never fought so that a privileged few could decide for everyone else. Its victory secured equality of voice, freedom of choice, respect for the rule of law, and respect for the will of the people. To deny those principles today is to betray that hard-won legacy.
On Monday, the non-government members of parliament must therefore be allowed, without pressure or intimidation, to elect from among themselves who should lead them in the National Assembly. It is a constitutional right that must be respected.
Democracy cannot survive selective principles. Either we defend the rule of law, including the right to vote and the freedom of conscience, or we admit openly that raw self-serving power, not principle, is what truly governs our actions.
