A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) lead parliamentarian Terrence Campbell has challenged Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s call for closer cooperation between the governing People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) and the opposition People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), questioning whether the proposal is intended to advance national unity or protect the ruling party’s political dominance.
In a letter published in Village Voice News today, October 24, Campbell argued that Jagdeo’s proposal lacked a clear framework for power sharing, credible commitments to institutional inclusion and evidence that the government was prepared to relinquish any meaningful portion of its executive authority.
Campbell’s intervention follows Jagdeo’s remarks that Guyana’s future would require the two historically dominant political forces to find common ground.
“We believe that the future of Guyana would involve at some level and some fashion, whatever that framework may be, these parties working together. They have to, of necessity,” Jagdeo said.
But Campbell questioned the sincerity of the overture, arguing that the government’s record on consultation, governance and the management of oil revenues undermines its appeal for cooperation.
“Against this background, it would not be an exaggeration to describe Jagdeo’s recent call for the PNCR and the PPP/C to work together as shocking,” Campbell wrote.
Campbell cites government’s record
The APNU parliamentary leader identified several actions he believes contradict the government’s stated commitment to cooperation and inclusivity.
These include the spending of substantial oil revenues without national consensus on the balance between expenditure and savings, the removal of Yonette Cummings-Edwards as Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, the preparation of the national Budget without consultation with the Opposition or trade unions, and the absence of Opposition representation on the Guyana Development Bank’s board.
Campbell also criticised the government’s handling of the MV Barima tragedy, contending that the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry without engaging the Opposition avoided parliamentary debate on the disaster.
“If trust was lacking in 2009, the situation is arguably worse today,” Campbell wrote, arguing that the government’s access to substantial oil revenues had not translated into meaningful efforts to work with other political forces.
Why was WIN excluded?
Campbell also questioned Jagdeo’s failure to mention the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, which has emerged as a significant force in the Opposition.
He argued that Guyana’s political landscape has changed from the traditional dominance of the PPP/C and the PNCR, creating conditions that could make power sharing more feasible.
Drawing on political scientist Arend Lijphart’s work on consociational democracy, Campbell cited the importance of a “multiple balance of power”, rather than a system dominated by two competing forces or one party enjoying clear political hegemony.
He questioned Jagdeo’s suggestion that the PPP/C and PNCR risk political extinction, given the ruling party’s control of government and access to oil wealth.
“But why should the PPP/C face extinction when it holds the reins of government and commands financial resources of a scale previously unimaginable in Guyana? Where, precisely, is the threat to the PPP/C?” Campbell asked.
Opposition unity and political accountability
Campbell argued that Jagdeo understands the political implications of a united Opposition, pointing to the removal of the PPP from office in 1964 and 2015 as examples of opposition forces contributing to changes in government.
He contended that a broader opposition coalition could challenge the PPP/C’s continued dominance and bring greater scrutiny to the distribution of state resources and allegations of improper accumulation of wealth.
Campbell also revisited earlier attempts at political cooperation, including the PPP’s critical support for PNC policies in 1975, efforts to form a coalition government before Forbes Burnham’s death in 1985, and discussions between Jagdeo and former PNCR leader Robert Corbin in the early 2000s.
He further referenced Guyana’s constitutional reforms of 2001, arguing that historical mistrust remains a major obstacle to meaningful executive power sharing.
‘Jagdeo must wheel and come again’
Campbell characterised Jagdeo’s proposal as an effort to secure the PNCR’s cooperation in preserving the PPP/C’s long-term political dominance rather than an offer of genuine power sharing.
He described the Vice President’s overture as a “dried-up coconut branch”, arguing that it lacked concrete commitments to institutional inclusion and accountability.
The APNU parliamentarian said the central issue was not whether the two parties should cooperate, but whether the proposed arrangement would serve the national interest or protect the ruling party’s position.
“The answer is, to my mind, very clear. Jagdeo must wheel and come again,” Campbell wrote.
He concluded that cooperation without trust, institutional safeguards and a clearly defined framework for accountability risked becoming a strategy for political survival rather than a meaningful arrangement for shared governance.
