Dear Editor
Guyana’s Parliament continues to project a troubling contradiction: while the institution at home is visibly weakened, underperforming, and increasingly irrelevant to the public it is supposed to serve, its senior figures continue to seek prestige abroad in forums that reward democratic symbolism more than democratic substance.
The presence of Deputy Speaker Dr. Vishwa Mahadeo at the 74th Meeting of the ParlAmericas Council and the 22nd Plenary Assembly in Ottawa may be presented as an act of parliamentary diplomacy, but it also invites a harder question: what exactly is being exported under the banner of “regional engagement” when the domestic legislature remains marred by dysfunction, inertia, and a persistent failure to command respect? A parliament that does not properly deliberate, scrutinize, or hold the executive to account cannot credibly posture as a model of democratic practice on the international stage.
This is not an argument against Guyana’s participation in hemispheric parliamentary bodies. It is an argument against the hypocrisy of sending representatives to speak the language of governance, transparency, and institutional strengthening while the home institution continues to atrophy.
If ParlAmericas is genuinely committed to democratic renewal, then it must do more than host ceremonial gatherings and issue polished declarations. It must also reckon with the reality that participation alone does not equal performance, and membership alone does not confer credibility.
Guyana’s parliamentary leadership should understand that international visibility is not a substitute for domestic responsibility. A deputy speaker cannot represent parliamentary excellence abroad if the parliament itself is widely seen as an appendage of the executive, a chamber too often reduced to formality, and a place where accountability is diluted by political convenience. The more these officials travel to forums on governance while failing to uphold governance at home, the more they expose the hollowness of their commitments.
There is also a larger institutional problem here. Bodies like ParlAmericas risk damaging their own moral authority when they allow weak parliamentary systems to bask in the legitimacy of association without demanding visible standards of conduct and performance.
Cooperation should not become cover. Dialogue should not become applause. And multilateral fellowship should not become a laundering mechanism for domestic failure.
If Guyana’s parliament is to recover any serious standing, its leaders must first show seriousness where it matters most: in the National Assembly, before the people of Guyana, through disciplined scrutiny, real debate, and uncompromising accountability. Until then, every foreign forum becomes another stage on which local dysfunction is repackaged as democratic participation.
Sincerely
Hemdutt Kumar
