Dear Editor,
Jagdeo’s appeal for political cooperation at Robert Corbin’s tribute was not statesmanship. It was a calculated intervention at a moment of grief, directed at a political constituency the PPP clearly wants to penetrate.
Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo chose an evening intended to honour the life and public service of former PNCR leader Robert Corbin to make a political pitch to the very party Corbin led. It was a crude and opportunistic display, delivered when PNCR supporters, relatives, colleagues and friends were mourning a loss.
Mr Corbin’s passing ought to have been an occasion for reflection on his record, his convictions and his contribution to Guyana. Instead, Jagdeo used the platform to advance the PPP’s familiar narrative: that the country’s future depends on the two major parties “working together,” and that old political divisions must be abandoned.
There is nothing wrong with national unity. Guyana desperately needs it. But unity cannot be reduced to a speech, nor can it be demanded selectively by a government that continues to centralize power, marginalize critics and operate without the full democratic scrutiny that Parliament is meant to provide.
The obvious question is: where, precisely, is the policy framework for cooperation?
Parliament has been shuttered. The opposition’s role in national decision-making is severely constrained. Major decisions on oil wealth, contracts, infrastructure, procurement, land, governance and public policy are routinely made from the top down. Consultation is too often ceremonial, while dissenting voices are dismissed as hostile, irrational or racially motivated.
No serious partnership can grow in that environment.
Jagdeo speaks of trust, maturity and a new political framework. Yet trust is not built through carefully timed speeches at funerals or memorial events. It is built by conduct: respect for institutions, adherence to constitutional safeguards, transparency in government, meaningful consultation, fair access to national opportunities and a genuine willingness to share decision-making power.
The PPP cannot credibly present itself as the architect of unity while practising exclusion in government.
The Electoral Calculation
This intervention also carries an unmistakable electoral dimension.
The PPP’s traditional support base is already highly consolidated. If it hopes to broaden its parliamentary strength, it must attract voters who historically identify with, or are sympathetic to, the PNC and PNCR. That is why the language of “new thinking,” cooperation and transcending race is now being deployed with greater urgency.
The political objective is not difficult to see: soften resistance within opposition constituencies, win over a segment of disillusioned PNCR supporters and create the appearance of a broad national coalition around the PPP.
A crossover is most useful to the ruling party when he or she can be displayed as proof that old loyalties have been abandoned. The former opposition figure becomes a symbol at rallies, public meetings, government events and party platforms—a face intended to reassure Afro-Guyanese communities that joining the PPP does not mean abandoning one’s identity, history or community.
But symbolism is not inclusion.
The real test is whether crossover figures are participating in consequential policymaking, shaping budgets, influencing oil-sector oversight, directing public investment, supervising procurement, determining national-security policy or holding the executive accountable. Or are they chiefly being used to give the PPP a more “national” face while actual power remains tightly held by the same political centre?
The answer matters because Guyanese have seen this pattern before: prominent recruits are loudly celebrated, assigned roles of visibility or usefulness, then deployed to persuade those who remain politically unconvinced. The recruitment of individuals can be portrayed as national unity, while the institutions of government remain closed, centralized and resistant to genuine power-sharing.
The larger prize could be a parliamentary majority large enough to alter constitutional arrangements, including the term-limit provisions that prevent a president from serving more than two terms. A 44-seat majority in the 65-member National Assembly would provide the kind of supermajority needed for major constitutional amendments.
That possibility makes Jagdeo’s outreach more than a sentimental appeal to national healing. It is a power play.
Guyana must be vigilant whenever constitutional change becomes politically convenient for those already in command of the executive, Parliament and the country’s rapidly expanding oil revenues.
Constitutional reform must never become a vehicle for entrenching an individual, a party or a governing elite.
Corbin’s Legacy Deserves Better
Robert Corbin believed in engagement, but engagement did not mean surrender. He could defend the PNC’s interests fiercely while recognizing that Guyana’s divided political culture required dialogue. That was political maturity, not political submission.
To invoke that history now requires more than praise for Mr Corbin’s willingness to talk. It requires a willingness by the PPP to create conditions in which dialogue can be real, equal and consequential.
If Jagdeo is sincere, the PPP should demonstrate it through action:
- Reopen and properly convene Parliament as a functioning arena for national debate and accountability.
- Establish structured, good-faith engagement with the parliamentary opposition on oil revenues, national development priorities, security, constitutional reform and public procurement.
- Strengthen independent oversight bodies rather than treating scrutiny as obstruction.
- End the practice of concentrating decision-making within a narrow executive circle.
- Guarantee that national opportunities, contracts, employment and development reach all communities fairly.
- Commit publicly that constitutional reform will not be used to facilitate a third presidential term or perpetuate any leader’s hold on power.
Until then, the rhetoric of unity will remain exactly that: rhetoric.
A government cannot demand that its opponents “get over” history while reproducing the same political instincts that keep Guyana divided—control, exclusion, distrust and the use of state power for partisan advantage.
Mr Corbin’s passing should have prompted humility. Instead, Jagdeo saw an opening. Guyana should not confuse that calculation with reconciliation.
Yours truly,
Hem Kumar
