A decades-old proposal to remove “Co-operative” from Guyana’s official name could return to the national debate as the country embarks on another constitutional reform process — but any attempt to change the name will have to go directly to the people in a referendum.
Constitutional reform advocate Vincent Alexander said last Monday that the proposal to change “Co-operative Republic of Guyana” to “Republic of Guyana” remains among the recommendations emerging from the major constitutional reform exercise of the late 1990s.
Speaking on Dr David Hinds’ Politics 101 programme, Alexander said the recommendation was never implemented because it fell into the category of constitutional changes requiring a referendum.
The issue is resurfacing as the Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) invites Guyanese to submit proposals on what should be changed in the Constitution. The deadline for submissions is December 31, 2026. The Commission says its listed areas do not limit the issues citizens can raise.
Parliament Cannot Simply Change the Name
Article 1(1) in the Constitution of Guyana establishes Guyana as the “Co-operative Republic of Guyana.” Article 1 is expressly protected under Article 164(2)(a), placing it among the Constitution’s most deeply entrenched provisions.
Article 164 requires a Bill altering Article 1 to be approved by a majority of electors voting in a referendum before it can proceed to presidential assent.
In other words, Parliament cannot simply pass an ordinary law and remove the word “Co-operative.”
The process would require:
- A constitutional amendment Bill altering Article 1;
- Passage through the National Assembly;
- Submission of the amendment to voters in a referendum;
- Approval by a majority of those voting; and
- Presidential assent in accordance with the Constitution.
Parliament itself has acknowledged that Article 164 contains provisions that can only be altered through a referendum.
The Recommendation Has Been Sitting for Decades
The roots of the proposal go back to the 1999 Constitutional Reform Commission, which produced 171 recommendations after a nationwide reform process.
Parliament’s historical account states that the Commission completed its work and submitted its report in July 1999. Amendments that did not require a referendum were subsequently enacted, while those requiring a referendum remained outstanding.
The Commission’s original report was formally laid before the National Assembly on July 22, 1999, after being submitted on July 17.
Alexander said one of the outstanding recommendations was the removal of “Co-operative” from the country’s official name.
He said the recommendation did not attract significant opposition during the reform process and that the parliamentary records could be revisited if the country decides to hold the required referendum.
What Does ‘Co-operative’ Mean?
Alexander also challenged the assumption that the word is merely a relic of Guyana’s socialist past.
He argued that co-operativism has deeper roots in Guyanese society, pointing to traditions of collective action among Indigenous communities and other groups, as well as self-help initiatives, community development and cooperative economic activity.
“We were carrying forward a struggle that had become decades and centuries before,” Alexander said.
He argued that the concept was intended to recognise the way communities organised themselves collectively rather than simply identify Guyana with a particular political ideology.
That interpretation is significant because Guyana’s designation as a Co-operative Republic emerged during the country’s transition to a republic in 1970. Parliament’s historical account records that constitutional amendments that year proclaimed Guyana a Co-operative Republic.
Alexander Challenges the PPP’s Reform Record
Alexander also used the discussion to challenge the People’s Progressive Party’s account of its role in constitutional reform.
He said that when the records of the 2001 reform process are examined, he expects there will be little evidence of fundamental constitutional proposals originating with the PPP.
“I’ve concluded in 2001, I’m going to check the records, you will not see any fundamental, if at all any, recommendation in terms of the reform of our Constitution in the proposal made by the People’s Progressive Party,” he said.
That is Alexander’s interpretation and remains a claim to be tested against the historical parliamentary record. The official records confirm that the 1999 Commission produced 171 recommendations and that Parliament subsequently considered the report through a Special Select Committee.
Alexander also identified other reform proposals that he said remained unresolved because they required a referendum, including proposals relating to free education and land to the tiller.
A Constitutional Question, Not Just a Name Change
The debate over “Co-operative” therefore reaches beyond branding. It raises a question about whether Guyana should retain a constitutional description adopted during an earlier phase of its national development or redefine that identity decades later.
The present constitutional reform process gives Guyanese another opportunity to raise that question. But if the proposal moves beyond discussion, the final decision cannot belong to Parliament alone. The Constitution has already settled that point.
Changing the name “Co-operative Republic of Guyana” would require Guyanese voters to have the final say in a referendum.
