Dear Editor,
I write in response to the recent comments made by Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) President, Pastor Exton Clarke, during his introductory remarks for Mr. Irfaan Ali at a recent Caribbean Union Conference Regional Camporee held in Guyana, regarding the state of freedom of religion in Guyana. While such discourse is both timely and necessary, it must be firmly grounded in historical accuracy and a clear understanding of the distinction between constitutional legacy and contemporary governance.
Let it be unequivocally stated that the right to freedom of religion in Guyana was not established under the current administration led by President Irfaan Ali, nor is it a creation of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C). This fundamental right predates the present political dispensation and is deeply rooted in the visionary leadership and nation-building efforts of Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham.
Under Burnham’s stewardship, Guyana developed and institutionalised a framework that upheld freedom of conscience and religious expression as central pillars of its democratic identity. It was during this period that the country’s pluralistic character was strengthened, enabling diverse religious communities to flourish in an atmosphere of mutual respect and coexistence. This enduring legacy continues to shape the religious harmony we experience today.
While any sitting government bears the responsibility to preserve and protect these freedoms, it is both misleading and historically inaccurate to attribute their origin to current political actors. The distinction between maintaining a right and creating it must not be blurred for the sake of political convenience or narrative.
Equally important, however, is the role of religious institutions in safeguarding the integrity of their sacred spaces. It is time for some religious leaders to cease providing opportunities for political figures to occupy the altar for partisan expression. The pulpit must not become a platform for political speeches, nor should it be used to advance political agendas under the guise of religious engagement. Such practices risk undermining the neutrality and moral authority that religious institutions are meant to uphold.
The separation between religious observance and political advocacy is not merely desirable; it is essential to preserving both democratic integrity and the sanctity of worship. Religious leaders must therefore exercise sound judgment and responsibility in ensuring that their platforms are not exploited for political gain.
In conclusion, as we engage in national conversations on religious freedom, let us do so with fidelity to historical truth, respect for institutional boundaries, and a shared commitment to protecting the principles that unite us as a people.
Yours truly,
Annette Ferguson
