A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) parliamentarian Juretha Fernandes has turned the controversy surrounding a photograph of former opposition supporters appearing with the governing People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) into a broader indictment of what she described as the Government’s use of economic vulnerability to extract political loyalty.
In a lengthy statement posted on social media, Fernandes said the photograph—circulating with individuals identified as former PNC/APNU supporters and current councillors—should not be viewed simply through the lens of political defections. She argued that the more troubling question is whether Guyanese are truly free to make political choices when access to economic opportunities and state resources can, in her view, become tied to political allegiance.
Fernandes acknowledged the anger among some opposition supporters, particularly because several of those now associated with the PPP/C had previously occupied leadership positions and had urged young people to reject the governing party.
“So when you see them going out there now to represent the very party that they taught and they impressed on the minds of other young people that is bad for Guyana, when you see them going out there now to represent that party, you would understand why there is a lot of persons who comment from a position of emotion.”
She said such reversals can leave young people questioning whether political leaders genuinely believe in the principles they promote.
But Fernandes argued that focusing solely on alleged political betrayal misses what she considers the more serious issue exposed by the photograph: economic dependency and political power.
“The only thing that is being made clear is that the PPP administration does not intend to work with people and to have an equal advancement of Guyanese once you are not willing to bow and for them to use and parade you as political props.”
Fernandes said some of the young people involved may simply be trying to survive and provide for their families, and cautioned against automatically interpreting their participation as a genuine ideological shift.
“This is survival for these people.”
She alleged that the Government is exploiting economic hardship by making access to opportunities conditional, directly or indirectly, on political loyalty.
“At no point in time, your survival as an individual should mean that you have to be broken into submission.”
The APNU parliamentarian also rejected the argument that individuals facing difficult economic circumstances are simply exercising their free political choice by accepting government opportunities.
“That’s not a choice.”
For Fernandes, genuine political freedom requires a level playing field in which political affiliation does not determine access to state contracts, programmes or other opportunities.
“Giving Guyanese a choice to choose where they stand politically would mean that if there are contracts being given out in this country, that any member of society, whether or not they speak for or against the government, would have equal access to those contracts.”
She contrasted that with what she described as a system in which people are offered benefits in exchange for visible political association.
“Not when you dangle a carrot in front of them and you say to them that, oh, this is what the administration is willing to give you if you stand and have a photograph with them, if you say you’re a member, if you work to build this party.”
Fernandes characterised such alleged practices as a threat to constitutional democracy and described them as indicative of what she called “a dictatorial administration.”
Her comments come as Guyana’s oil-fuelled economy has dramatically expanded the resources available to the State, while access to government contracts, employment and publicly funded programmes remains a major political issue.
Fernandes also rejected the suggestion that the PPP/C has fundamentally changed since the opposition campaigned against it from 2020 onward.
“The PPP did not change. If anything, they tightened up on their modus operandi.”
She accused the administration of maintaining dependency rather than empowering citizens to become economically independent.
“They’re only interested in giving you just enough to keep you always needing them for something more.”
The remarks reflect a broader opposition concern about whether the Government’s control over public resources can translate into political influence, particularly among younger Guyanese seeking employment and economic advancement.
Fernandes ended by promising continued support for young people whom she believes are being placed under political and economic pressure.
“To the young people that is in that situation, that was used as political props, I’ll still fight for you. That’s my responsibility.”
She added:
“We are here for you, and we’re going to make sure that the PPP is not sitting so that you do not have to face that level of humiliation ever again.”
Fernandes’ intervention therefore reframes the photograph from a story about who left one political camp for another into a much larger question about Guyana’s democracy: Can political choice truly be free when economic opportunity is perceived to depend on political allegiance?
