For months after Guyana’s General and Regional Elections, the country has existed in a troubling democratic limbo. While the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), its Government, and the Speaker of the National Assembly insist that Guyana remains a functioning democracy, their conduct tells a far more disturbing story.
What we are witnessing is not democratic governance in good faith, but the hallmarks of crypto-communist behaviour: the quiet erosion of institutions, the manipulation of procedure, and the concentration of power behind a democratic façade.
In any functioning parliamentary democracy, the Leader of the Opposition is not a ceremonial luxury; it is a constitutional necessity. The Opposition exists to scrutinise, challenge, and restrain executive power.
Yet, despite the passage of months since the elections, the Speaker of the National Assembly has failed to convene Parliament to facilitate the election of a Leader of the Opposition. This is not a mere administrative oversight. It is a deliberate political act with grave constitutional consequences.
The Ali-led PPP Government continues to operate as though Guyana is enjoying normal democratic conditions. constitutional boards are being appointed, policies announced, and authority exercised, all while one of the most fundamental pillars of parliamentary democracy remains absent.
A Government that governs without a recognised Opposition Leader is, by definition, unchecked. That is not democracy; it is authoritarianism dressed in constitutional language.
This pattern of behaviour reflects a deeper ideological problem. Crypto-communism does not announce itself with slogans or manifestos. Instead, it advances subtly, using democratic mechanisms to hollow out democracy itself.
Institutions remain in name, but their substance is undermined. Elections occur, yet outcomes are manipulated through delay, obstruction, and procedural gamesmanship. Power is centralised while accountability is neutralised.
The Speaker of the National Assembly bears particular responsibility. The office of Speaker is meant to be impartial, protective of parliamentary integrity, and respectful of democratic balance.
When the Speaker becomes an active participant in political delay and obstruction, the office is reduced to an extension of the executive. The Speaker must get himself in line, not with the PPP, but with the Constitution and the people of Guyana. Playing politics with Parliament is playing politics with democracy itself.
The PPP Government cannot continue to claim democratic legitimacy while tolerating—or encouraging—the absence of a Leader of the Opposition. In every true democracy, Government and Opposition exist in tension, not convenience. Remove one, and the system collapses into one-party rule in practice, regardless of how many parties exist on paper.
Guyana deserves better than a managed democracy and better than leaders who believe power can be exercised indefinitely without scrutiny.
Until a Leader of the Opposition is duly elected and Parliament allowed to function as intended, the claim that Guyana is operating as a full democracy rings hollow. What remains is an authoritarian structure wearing democratic clothing—and the people should not be fooled by appearances.
Pt.Ubraj Narine, JP, COA
Former Staff Sgt.(GDF), Mayor
City of Georgetown
