Dear Editor,
There are few forces more fundamentally destabilizing to an entrenched status quo than the emergence of a new political reality. Such a reality now undeniably exists within Guyana’s political landscape, and its presence has caused visible and significant disruption. While the government would have the public believe that it remains composed and untroubled, the conduct displayed in recent parliamentary proceedings tells a very different story.
During last week’s budget debates, several members on the government benches exposed themselves as crass, ill-mannered, shallow, condescending, and, at times, outright disgraceful. The overall quality of many of the presentations was deeply unimpressive, marked not by confidence or mastery of policy, but by insecurity thinly veiled as authority.
This behaviour is best understood as a manifestation of cognitive dissonance, triggered by a political shift they neither anticipated nor know how to manage.
Let us be candid: in a remarkably short period, the new political reality (WIN) has accomplished what no other political force has achieved in Guyana’s modern history. That fact alone explains the anxiety now evident within the PPP. Fear, not strength, drives the relentless attempts to discredit and dismantle this emerging force. Yet, in their haste, they continue to undermine themselves. Rather than extinguishing the momentum of this new reality, they have repeatedly added fuel to its fire.
The recent budget debates marked a pivotal moment in this evolution. These proceedings recorded what was arguably the highest viewership in Guyana’s parliamentary history. In the final days of the debate, online engagement surged dramatically. Across multiple livestream platforms, hundreds, indeed thousands of Guyanese, both at home and in the diaspora, openly stated that this was their first time watching budget debates. They were not tuning in because the government had inspired confidence, nor because the budget offered meaningful relief from economic hardship. They were watching because they wanted to see how the new reality would confront the established political order.
They wanted to hear from the man the government insists “cannot,” and to assess whether his team could measure up against seasoned political operators. For many who had previously been skeptical or unsupportive of this new reality, the debates served as a litmus test to determine whether this reality was substantive or merely performative.
The government, however, chose to play every role except the one that mattered. They acted simultaneously as participants, judges, and cheerleaders of the debate. With each speaker, they attempted to discredit the contributions of the combined opposition not through reasoned argument or policy clarity, but through personal attacks, slander, and juvenile political theatrics. What they failed to appreciate was that the audience had changed. This was no longer the familiar audience of a few hundred loyal observers; it was a vast and diverse viewership of thousands, many witnessing parliamentary conduct for the very first time.
Those viewers, the people, were the true arbiters of the debate. And by and large, their assessments were fair and discerning. They recognized strengths and weaknesses across all sides. Yet for a government boasting decades of experience, the performance was strikingly poor. It reflected a profound failure to grasp the magnitude and implications of the disruption now reshaping Guyana’s political landscape.
In that failure lies the clearest evidence yet that the old political order has not only been challenged, but unsettled.
Regards
Clayon F. Halley
