By Timothy Hendricks- Last Monday’s meeting of Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs), convened to elect a Leader of the Opposition, should have been a straightforward exercise in parliamentary democracy. Instead, it laid bare a troubling pattern of political illusion, evasion, and bad faith on the part of APNU Members of Parliament.
Their conduct- arriving in the chamber, sitting through nominations, and then walking out before the vote while ensuring their names were not recorded – raises serious concerns about their respect for democratic norms, coalition politics, and the meaning of cooperation itself.
The justification advanced by the leader of the APNU MPs, Dr. Terrence Campbell, only deepened those concerns. According to him, because there was only one nomination, there was no need for a vote. This reasoning is not merely weak; it is fundamentally at odds with parliamentary practice and democratic accountability.
A nomination does not negate the need for confirmation. A process is not rendered optional simply because it appears uncontested. Votes are not symbolic rituals to be dispensed with at convenience; they are the formal mechanism through which legitimacy is conferred and responsibility recorded.
If APNU believed that Mr. Aruziddin Mohamed was unsuitable, they had every opportunity to express that position honestly. They could have voted against him. They could have abstained. They could have placed their objections squarely on the parliamentary record. Instead, they chose the most evasive option available: disappearing from the process altogether, while later offering a procedural excuse that collapses under even minimal scrutiny.
Parliament is not a private meeting of party executives. It is a public institution, operating on rules, records, and accountability to the electorate. To argue that a vote was unnecessary because there was only one nominee is to misunderstand, or deliberately misrepresent, the purpose of parliamentary decision-making.
Confirmation through a vote is precisely what transforms a nomination into a legitimate office-holder. By walking out, APNU did not avoid a meaningless exercise; they avoided accountability.
This behaviour amounts to political shadowboxing. By refusing to vote, APNU avoided revealing their true position while attempting to cloak that avoidance in procedural logic. Such tactics may offer short-term internal cover, but they do lasting damage to the credibility of the opposition and the integrity of democratic institutions.
When elected representatives deliberately evade the record, they deny citizens the right to know where their MPs stand on matters of national consequence.
Even more troubling was the contradiction that followed. In the same moment that APNU withdrew from the formal process, their parliamentary leader, Dr. Campbell spoke publicly about “cooperation.”
Cooperation with whom, and on what basis? Cooperation cannot be built on selective participation. It cannot flourish where one side refuses to engage honestly in the most basic democratic procedures. Walking out of Parliament while speaking the language of unity is not cooperation; it is political illusion.
This conduct sends a deeply confusing and damaging signal to WIN and to the newly confirmed Leader of the Opposition. Coalition politics depend on predictability, transparency, and good faith. By refusing to participate in a foundational decision while simultaneously claiming a commitment to collaboration, APNU has weakened the very ground on which opposition unity must stand. How can coalition partners plan, negotiate, or challenge the government effectively when one major bloc will not even register its position in a formal vote?
The implications extend far beyond a single parliamentary sitting. Opposition politics in Guyana have long been plagued by fragmentation, mistrust, and strategic ambiguity. This episode reinforces the perception that APNU remains more comfortable with obstruction and performative gestures than with constructive engagement. Such behaviour weakens the opposition as a whole and hands the government an unnecessary advantage. A divided, evasive opposition cannot credibly hold power to account.
Votes matter. Attendance matters. Records matter. Parliamentary democracy relies on these fundamentals. When MPs intentionally remove themselves from them, they erode not only their own credibility but also public confidence in opposition governance as a viable alternative. Citizens watching this episode are left asking an uncomfortable but unavoidable question: if the opposition cannot manage its disagreements transparently, how can it be trusted to manage the affairs of the state?
If APNU is genuinely committed to cooperation with WIN and the Leader of the Opposition, it must abandon illusionary politics and recommit to principled participation. Cooperation is not declared at microphones; it is demonstrated in chambers. It is shown by staying in the room, casting a vote, and standing by the outcome.
Until that happens, such actions will continue to fracture opposition unity, strain coalition politics, and deepen public cynicism. Guyana deserves an opposition that practices accountability; not one that mistakes disappearance for principle.
