Guyana Stuck in ‘Suboptimal Freedom’ as Democratic Deficits Persist — Jeffrey

Political scientist and former minister in the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government, Dr. Henry Jeffrey, has delivered a stark assessment of Guyana’s democratic condition, warning that the country remains trapped in what he describes as a state of “suboptimal and stagnant freedom,” with little progress despite decades of electoral democracy.

Writing in the Village Voice News on Sunday, Jeffrey pointed to Guyana’s ranking of 92 out of 179 countries in the 2026 V-Dem Liberal Democracy Index as evidence that the country continues to lag significantly behind regional and global peers.

“Guyana’s rank of 92 out of 179 countries… suggests that, notwithstanding all the talk about return of democracy in 1992, it is nowhere near becoming the democracy it could, and its people have stagnated at a substantial level of unfreedom,” Jeffrey wrote, defining that condition as citizens having “their lives and resources extensively dictated by others rather than by themselves.”

The analysis places Guyana well behind several Caribbean Community counterparts, including Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, and closer to the lower end of global democratic performance. Jeffrey argued that historical trends reinforce this gap, noting that apart from Haiti, “the democratic distance that has historically separated Guyana from its other Caribbean Community partners makes it an outlier in this relatively small but exemplar regional zone of democracy.”

Drawing on the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) framework, Jeffrey outlined that free and fair elections alone are insufficient to define a functioning liberal democracy. He noted that governments produced through elections may still be “inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted, irresponsible, dominated by special interests and incapable of adopting policies demanded by the public good.”

He emphasised that the V-Dem Index measures additional democratic components, including protections for civil liberties, institutional checks and balances, equality in political participation, citizen engagement, and the quality of public deliberation. Within these categories, Guyana’s performance remains weak, particularly in areas tied to participation and deliberative governance.

Jeffrey warned that Guyana exists in what he termed a “grey zone” between electoral democracy and electoral autocracy, cautioning that the global rise in electoral democracies should not be mistaken for genuine democratic progress. “That electoral democracies are growing in numbers should not be misinterpreted as good news,” he noted, citing the 2026 index.

Central to his critique is the country’s entrenched political structure, which he said continues to undermine inclusive governance. Quoting a 2021 USAID Democracy, Human Rights and Governance assessment, Jeffrey argued that Guyana’s political trajectory will remain unstable unless ethnic inclusion becomes institutionalized.

“Guyana will continue to face unstable socio-cultural and governance conditions until ethnic inclusion in the decision-making process is institutionalised,” the report stated, adding that the current Westminster-style system “does not encourage participatory processes and reaching consensus with the opposition.”

The report further urged both the governing PPP and the opposition APNU+AFC coalition to move toward power-sharing arrangements rather than maintaining what Jeffrey described as a “winner takes all” political culture.

Jeffrey also cited comparative democratic theory, noting that majoritarian systems are rare globally. Referencing political scientist Arend Lijphart, he wrote: “The evidence is overwhelming that majoritarian (winner-takes-all) democracy is the exception rather than the rule… limited to very few countries, mainly the United Kingdom and countries influenced by the British political tradition.”

He contrasted this with constitutional systems such as that of the United States, which incorporate separation of powers and institutional checks. However, Jeffrey pointed out that even such systems are vulnerable, noting that the V-Dem Index found that under President Donald Trump, “the level of democracy in the USA… has fallen back to 1965 levels,” adding that “the speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled is unprecedented in modern history.”

Against that backdrop, Jeffrey argued that Guyana’s low ranking is unsurprising, describing the country as operating under “a largely unaccountable, ethnic regime.”

The column further highlighted research indicating that reversing democratic decline requires a combination of strong institutional safeguards, active civic engagement, and early intervention. These include “electoral integrity, judiciary constraints, and legislative constraints” alongside “robust and active civil society, independent media, and sustained non-violent mass pro-democracy protests.”

Yet Jeffrey expressed doubt about whether such conditions currently exist in Guyana, pointing to deep ethnic and political divisions that weaken collective public pressure.

“As this column has repeatedly argued, the people always need to keep their powder dry,” he wrote, before posing a more troubling question: “But what happens when, in the few cases like Guyana, because of racial/ethnic/partisanship, there is in effect no people?”

He concluded that the country remains trapped in a political impasse, warning: “Guyanese are trapped in this political cul de sac: there is no substantial public opinion with which to hold governments accountable and no appropriate elite consensus as to the way forward.”

Jeffrey’s assessment adds to ongoing debate about governance, inclusion and institutional reform in Guyana, particularly as the country continues to navigate rapid economic change alongside persistent political polarization.