In what many are now viewing as evidence of President Irfaan Ali’s growing obsession with attention, often associated with symptoms of megalomania, the president has further fueled such claims by stamping Guyana’s passport and the newly issued $2000 bill with his “One Guyana” slogan. Some argue that the Guyanese society is passively accepting behaviours that may reflect underlying mental illness concerns, while some are speaking out.
In a sharply worded critique, former Mayor of Georgetown, Pt. Ubraj Narine, has called for the removal of the “One Guyana” slogan from national passports and the $2000 bill. He argues that its use undermines political neutrality and violates constitutional principles.
The “One Guyana” slogan, frequently promoted by the Ali-led People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government, has sparked significant public debate. While Narine acknowledges the slogan may have been intended to promote unity and national cohesion, he argues that its presence on state-issued documents and currency blurs the line between national identity and political branding.
“Unity and national cohesion are noble goals, but state symbols like passports and currency should remain neutral and free from partisan influence,” Narine said. “These documents represent the sovereignty of all Guyanese, regardless of political affiliation, and should not be used as tools for political messaging.”
Narine emphasised that the country’s official motto, “One People, One Nation, One Destiny,” as enshrined in the nation’s coat of arms, is the true representation of Guyana’s collective identity. Unlike “One Guyana,” which is closely tied to the governing party, the national motto is nonpartisan and has guided the country since independence.
The former mayor expressed concern that the inclusion of “One Guyana” on national documents sets a dangerous precedent. He warned that if successive governments are allowed to imprint their political slogans on official symbols, it could result in a volatile and ever-shifting political landscape, where national symbols are frequently altered to reflect the agenda of the governing party.
“There is no constitutional or legal basis for this decision,” Narine stated, noting that the phrase “One Guyana” is not recognised as an official national principle in the Constitution. “If the government wants to introduce new national symbols, they should undergo public consultation and legislative scrutiny, not be imposed unilaterally.”
Narine called on the government to restore the integrity of Guyana’s national symbols, arguing that political slogans—no matter how well-intentioned—should not substitute for truly national, nonpartisan ideals.
“Our national identity belongs to all Guyanese, and it must remain above party politics,” Narine asserted. “If unity is the goal, let it be achieved through actions that foster inclusion, not through politically charged symbolism.”
According to the Constitution of Guyana, the national motto is “One People, One Nation, One Destiny.” This should therefore be the only motto (slogan) reflected on all national documents. This principle should not be replaced by a slogan driven by partisanship or to enhance the ego of a leader.
The “One Guyana” slogan, Narine argues, contradicts this constitutional principle. His critique also highlights concerns about the president’s mental state and reignites ongoing debates about national unity, political branding, and the preservation of Guyana’s sovereignty.
Narine’s call comes on the heel of Opposition Members of Parliament Amanza Walton-Desir and Roysdale Forde S.C
