Despite a peaceful Election Day, the 2025 General and Regional Elections in Guyana have failed to meet the democratic benchmark of being “free and fair,” according to a critical post-election assessment issued by the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA).
The GHRA’s assessment echoes the findings of five major international observer missions—the European Union (EU), the Organisation of American States (OAS), the Commonwealth, CARICOM, and the Carter Center—none of which declared the elections to be fully free and fair. Instead, all flagged serious concerns, chief among them the ruling People’s Progressive Party’s (PPP) abuse of incumbency and the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM) institutional deficiencies.
“Commendations for peace cannot mask the systemic flaws that tainted the 2025 electoral process,” the GHRA stated bluntly.
A major concern was the bloated Official List of Electors (OLE), which contained 757,690 registered voters—nearly equal to the country’s total population of 780,000—raising alarm about potential list inflation and voter fraud. The PPP, which had once called for a clean voters list while in opposition in 2015, reversed its stance after returning to power in 2020, opposing both biometric voter identification and a house-to-house registration process that could have improved electoral integrity. These reform efforts were previously initiated by the A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) government but were stalled by a court ruling ahead of the 2020 elections and never resumed.
Exacerbating the flaws in Guyana’s 2025 voting process, eleven civil society organisations including the GHRA issued a joint statement during the results tabulation urgently demanding an investigation into what they condemn as a blatant constitutional violation by GECOM, accusing the Commission of willfully ignoring the legal mandate that electors be domiciled, meaning permanent residents of Guyana.
Abuse of State Resources by Ruling Party
All five observer missions cited the PPP’s use of state media, government vehicles, public buildings, and civil servants to bolster its campaign, giving the incumbent party an overwhelming advantage. This misuse of state resources undermined the level playing field essential to democratic competition.
Yet, even with these tools at its disposal, the PPP fell short of securing a two-thirds parliamentary majority. Notably, voter turnout in its traditional strongholds was weaker than expected, suggesting some level of public disillusionment.
WIN’s Disruption of the Political Order
In a surprising electoral twist, the newly-formed We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party dealt a blow to both major parties. With just three months of political existence, WIN carved out a meaningful share of the vote in Regions 4 and 10—areas historically loyal to the opposition People’s National Congress (PNC).
WIN’s grassroots, community-driven campaign model effectively countered PPP’s dominance, especially in economically marginalised communities. However, its rapid ascent raises practical questions: most of its elected representatives lack legislative experience, and its leader, Azruddin Mohammed, remains under U.S. sanctions for alleged gold smuggling and misuse of state connections—a potential political liability.
Still, WIN’s emergence has disrupted the traditional racial and political fault lines that have defined Guyanese politics for decades. Its ability to build a multi-ethnic support base may offer a rare chance at bridging the Indo- and Afro-Guyanese divide.
Jagdeo’s Unease and PNC’s Decline
Former President Bharrat Jagdeo, now Vice President and General Secretary of the PPP, showed visible discomfort with the PNC’s diminished role as the chief opposition. But the vacuum it left behind has opened the door for more pluralistic and potentially less polarising political discourse, GHRA hypothesis.
GECOM’s Deep Institutional Crisis
The GHRA reserved some of its most scathing criticism for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), calling into question its professional and structural independence. The Commission’s composition—based on nominations from the very parties it’s supposed to regulate—has long stifled its capacity to make impartial decisions.
Despite promises dating back to the constitutional reform process of 2000, little has changed. Proposals such as converting Guyana’s 10 administrative regions into single-seat constituencies, originally meant as a transitional measure for the 2001 elections, remain unimplemented more than two decades later.
The result is an electoral body trapped in partisan paralysis, unable or unwilling to pursue reforms essential to public trust and electoral credibility.
“Until structural and legislative changes are made, elections in Guyana will continue to be susceptible to the abuse of state resources and the corrosive influence of money,” the GHRA warned.
A Call for Urgent Reform
The GHRA’s report stands as a stark reminder that democracy is more than the absence of violence. It requires institutional integrity, electoral equity, and a credible process that reflects the will of the people.
Without meaningful reform—particularly of GECOM’s composition, electoral laws, and constituency framework—Guyana’s democracy will remain fragile, subject to manipulation by those in power.
As the dust settles on the 2025 polls, the question remains: will political leaders finally embrace electoral reform, or will they allow another five years of democratic backsliding?
