By Mark DaCosta- In the modern political landscape of Guyana, the “One Guyana” slogan has become a centerpiece of state rhetoric. Adorning expensive, taxpayer funded, billboards and punctuating ministerial speeches, the phrase suggests a nation transcending its historical fractures to forge a unified destiny. However, beneath this polished and false veneer of national unity lies a starkly different operational reality. For many, “One Guyana” is not a roadmap to inclusivity but a sophisticated PR exercise designed to mask a “winner-takes-all” political culture that thrives on the marginalisation of those outside the inner circle of power.
The fundamental critique of the “One Guyana” narrative is that it prioritises optics over institutional equity. A slogan, no matter how patriotic, cannot replace the structural safeguards required in a multi-ethnic society. Critics argue that the current administration utilises this narrative as a shield against accusations of exclusionary governance. When the distribution of national resources, project contracts, and socio-economic opportunities appears to favor politically aligned constituencies, the “One Guyana” banner serves as a convenient tool to dismiss legitimate grievances as “divisive” or “unpatriotic.”
The “winner-takes-all” reality is most visible in the allocation of state resources and regional development. In a system where the executive branch wields immense control over the national purse, regions and communities that do not politically align with the ruling party often find themselves on the periphery of the “One Guyana” prosperity. This is not merely an anecdotal observation; it is the logical outcome of a constitutional framework that rewards total victory with total control. When 51 percent of the vote translates to 100 percent of the executive authority, the incentive for genuine consultation with the remaining 49 percent goes up in smoke, and vanishes.
This systemic exclusion is exacerbated by the “winner-takes-all” executive presidency, a relic of a constitutional era that many argue has outlived its utility. As long as the presidency remains an all-or-nothing prize, Guyanese politics will continue to be a high-stakes zero-sum game. This environment fosters deep-seated insecurity among minority groups and opposition supporters, who see the state not as a neutral arbiter, but as an instrument of the party in power. As one political analyst famously noted regarding Caribbean governance, “The constitution is not just a document; it is a distribution of power, and currently, that power is dangerously concentrated.”
The path forward requires more than better messaging; it demands a fundamental rewriting of the Guyanese social contract. Shared governance is no longer a radical suggestion; it is a survival imperative for a nation on the cusp of unprecedented wealth. We must move toward a constitutional reform mandate that institutionalizes shared governance and effectively ends the executive presidency’s absolute dominance. Shared governance would ensure that every major community has a seat at the decision-making table, transforming the state from a prize to be won into a partnership to be managed.
True unity cannot be decreed from a podium or printed on a banner. It must be felt in the equitable distribution of the national budget and seen in the representation of all voices within the halls of power. If “One Guyana” is to be more than a myth, the government must move beyond the PR exercise and embrace the hard work of constitutional reform. Until the “winner-takes-all” system is dismantled, the dream of a unified nation will remain a mirage, shimmering on the horizon while the reality of marginalisation persists on the ground. The call for shared governance is not a call for political compromise; it is a demand for a stable, equitable, and truly unified future.
