A fresh political storm is brewing following a sharply critical op-ed by former minister and political scientist Henry Jeffrey, who accuses the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP/C) of attempting to “normalise” authoritarian control over Georgetown.
Writing in his Future Note column in Village Voice News, Jeffrey argues that the government’s recent interventions in the capital’s administration represent a dangerous erosion of local democracy, warning that Guyana is being pushed “further down the dictatorial road.”
“Controversy has erupted as the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government that for decades has not been able to electorally take control of the management of Georgetown attempts to do so by autocratic means… destroying what is left to be destroyed of electoral democracy at the local level,” Jeffrey wrote.
Escalating Clash Over City Control
Recent actions by the PPP/C government have intensified a power struggle with Georgetown’s Mayor and City Council, which is currently controlled by the opposition A Partnership for National Unity (APNU). City officials and opposition representatives argue that the state is moving to assert greater control over the capital’s administration.
Central to the dispute is the government’s decision to assume responsibility for 22 municipal roads, along with its growing involvement in key city assets. While authorities have framed the measures as necessary to address infrastructure challenges, the council has rejected this justification, describing the moves as encroachment on its statutory authority.
Mayor Alfred Mentore and city councillors have sharply condemned the actions, calling them “a direct attack on the authority of the council” and “political intimidation” aimed at weakening local governance.
Tensions escalated further when councillors were reportedly blocked by police from accessing a municipal property on Water Street, triggering accusations of a “hostile takeover” of city assets and warnings that the developments threaten democratic norms.
Councillors have also pointed to the absence of meaningful consultation and the involvement of central government agencies as evidence of an attempt to sideline elected municipal officials, with some arguing the dispute reflects a broader push to consolidate control over Georgetown.
Governance or Power Grab?
Jeffrey contends that Georgetown’s deteriorated condition—often cited as justification for intervention—is itself partly the result of deliberate political strategy. He claims that since taking office in 1992, the PPP undermined the city’s institutional and financial capacity in hopes of eventually gaining electoral control.
“The regime’s present direct seizure of important aspects of city government is a recognition that… Africans in general will not fall prey to its machinations.”
His position echoes concerns raised by former mayor Hamilton Green, who argued that successive PPP administrations weakened the City Council and failed to meaningfully strengthen municipal governance.
Debate Over “Normal” Politics
Jeffrey also took aim at arguments from PPP supporters who frame the party’s actions as routine political competition. Referencing a rebuttal by commentator Sultan Mohamed, he rejected the notion that attempts to control Georgetown are simply “what politics is all about.”
“The answer is a resounding: no. Certainly not democratic politics at the institutional or individual level,” he asserted.
To underscore his point, Jeffrey drew comparisons with Singapore, noting that while it holds elections, it is still classified internationally as an “electoral autocracy.” He cited the 2026 Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Index, which places both Guyana and Singapore in troubling positions on democratic metrics.
Warning Signs of Modern Autocracy
Jeffrey argued that modern authoritarian systems often maintain the appearance of democracy through elections while eroding genuine political freedoms.
“The hallmark of modern autocracies is to hold elections as they strip the population… of their right to self governance,” he wrote.
He contrasted this with democratic norms, pointing to the conduct of Canada’s Prime Minister in navigating parliamentary challenges as an example of compromise and institutional respect.
Ethnicity, Power, and Accountability
A central thread in Jeffrey’s critique is the role of ethnic politics. He rejected claims that the PPP’s approach reflects ordinary political competition rather than racialised governance.
He further accused the government of avoiding transparency on ethnic disparities, particularly by failing to produce disaggregated data on wealth distribution.
“The PPP has been running from the United Nations demand for countries to provide ethnically disaggregated data,” he stated.
Historical Grievances Resurface
Jeffrey also revisited long-standing political disputes, including debates over power-sharing proposals during the independence era and development initiatives under past administrations such as those led by Desmond Hoyte.
He argued that delays and mismanagement under PPP governance hindered key urban development projects, citing reports that pointed to slow implementation and incomplete institutional reforms.
Call for Democratic Safeguards
In closing, Jeffrey described the PPP as “an autocratic contraption” and warned that Guyana lacks the institutional counterweights—such as a unified opposition, strong civil society, and sustained protest movements—needed to resist democratic decline.
“In a context such as Guyana, where even the possibility of these factors appearing does not seem to exist, what is to be done,” he asked.
The escalating confrontation—now clearly framed along political lines between the PPP/C government and an APNU-controlled City Council—has placed the governance of Georgetown at the centre of a broader national debate over democracy, power, and the future direction of the state.
