‘The PPP’s Foolhardiness And Tomorrow’

‘Dr. Henry Jeffrey diagnoses the world – but offers no constitutional prescriptions for Guyana.’ (Centre For Guyana’s Progress, 13/9/2026). I would have thought it impossible for anyone to make such a statement. It would be truer to say that I have written too much on the need for such reforms, and below I will again contribute following the bullet-point format of the Centre.  But first, Bharrat Jagdeo, General Secretary of the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) made some important associated comments at one of the funeral ceremonies of former PNCR leader Robert Corbin that deserves some attention.

The greatest obstacle to the introduction of the necessary constitutional reforms in Guyana has been the PPP, but this in no way exculpates the Peoples’ National Congress Reform (PNCR), which promised and had the opportunity but failed to put in place the required reforms.  Recently, the PPP has taken a more cooperative stance which, although bordering on facetiousness, should not be ignore.

For example, without one iota of evidence, Jagdeo sought to excuse his own failure to act by riding the old hobby horse of those who fail by suggesting that it is only now that some young people want change. Indeed, he could not have been including the young people who normally vote for the PPP, for only a few months ago, they showed no such indication. He did not get anything close to the ‘red wave’ he may have expected but received 7,000 more votes than in 2020 elections.

Jagdeo said that those who believe that the late Robert Corbin had ‘sold out’ to the PPP are wrong: Corbin did not sell out: he simply understood the value of cooperating with the PPP. Unfortunately, Corbin’s own conclusion was that cooperating with the PPP turned out to be a waste of time. ‘Regrettably, the time and energy spent to obtain the results achieved so far suggest that deliberate efforts are being made to retard implementation’ (H. O. Corbin, MP, 17th August 2003 Address to the Nation).  Of course, Jagdeo could have better made the point that Corbin did not sell out to the PPP: on the contrary, he succeeded in defeating the PPP at two consecutive elections 2011 and 2015.

But at the very least, over the last three decades, multiple experts have been advising Guyanese that the winner-takes all colonial method inherited from the British and maintained in the constitution that resulted from the 2000 reform process is inappropriate for an ethnically divided society such as Guyana.

Indeed, US President Jimmy Carter left Guyana in 2004 claiming that the PPP was not prepared to make the necessary changes. The British government paid for Guyanese politicians to attend the 2008 anniversary of Northern Ireland’s Good Friday Agreement, attempting to provide the political elite with a concrete example of shared governance. At the start of the last PPP term of office, an expert group concluded that ‘Guyana will continue to face unstable socio-cultural and governance conditions until ethnic inclusion in the decision-making process is institutionalized.’ (2021 USAID report ‘Democracy, Human Rights and Governance assessment’ in Guyana.)

Yet even today, all the general secretary of the ruling party can tell the Guyanese people is  that he now ‘believes that the future of Guyana would involve, at some level and some fashion, whatever that framework may be, these parties (the PPP and PNCR) working together …. They have to, its of necessity.’ (‘Jagdeo warns PPP, PNCR face extinction if they fail to adapt,’ (KN: 16/10/2026).

In my view, Jagdeo and the PPP have only come upon this urgent need for ethnic inclusiveness and cooporation because immediately upon coming to government in 2021 US President Joe Biden, who defined his foreign policy as essentially a struggle between democracy and autocracy, began to place enormous pressure on the PPP to make the necessary changes.

In ‘Biden, Harris and Guyana’(VV: 28/07/2024) I noted that in 2022 both the president and vice-president of Guyana were ‘invited’ to Washington for a dressing down. US Vice President Kamala Harris was apparently made the Guyana pointperson who ‘encouraged Dr. Ali to establish more inclusive, equitable, governance in Guyana. … The Biden administration has continued to cajole the regime in the direction of good governance and inclusivity; from forcing some rethink of public service pay to visibly indicating where corruption and mismanagement are located.’ I also noted that, ‘The autocratic oligarchy of the PPP is hoping that the Republicans take government in the US and reverse the policies of the present administration.’

The Republicans won the elections and a huge celebratory billboard appeared in Georgetown, only to be hurriedly dismantled once its implications and consequences were truly appreciated. All the talk about PPP and PNCR having to work together is intended to try and repair the fallout from that foolishness.

For me, it does not really matter how the PPP arrived at its present cooperative position once it is there. But there is some speculation that the PPP is now willing to properly cooperate because it is concerned about the possible political impact of WIN (We Invest in Nationhood).  But apart from some activities that could easily be categorised as mutual gaslighting,  where is the evidence to back up such a speculation? There is no indication that WIN had a negative impact on the PPP during the last elections; indeed, it might have contributed to it getting more votes. Put yourself in the PPP’s position: what would you be more concerned about – the possible fallout from the USA or WIN?!

Suggestions for tomorrow’s constitutional reforms

General problems

1. The separation of powers: the fundament principle of liberal government is absent in Guyana.
2. This is made worse by two large ethnic groups and parties having control over 80% of the voting population.
3. No proper government accountability exists.
4. The system of governance is autocratic and suboptimal.
5. Decades of quarrels and clashes based on claims and counter claims of ethnic discrimination have cost much life and property.
6. The national and international rights of racial/ethnic groups to their own independent associations is being blatantly violated.

Suggested solutions

1. In Guyana, the separation of powers does not exist and so the link by which ethnic political parties and, ipso facto, their followers control the executive that in turn controls parliament and has tremendous influence over the judiciary, must be broken.
2. In the absence of the means to properly hold governments accountable, the executive authority of the state must be curtailed by direct power-sharing, veto, supermajorities, devolution, enhanced civil society enhancements, etc.
3. Independent public commissions and committees must be made independent of the government in spirit and deed.
4. Their appointment and the behaviour of the entire government, opposition and all public bodies must pass the test of an independent, preferably non-resident, ethical ombudsman.
5. There needs to be an annual ethnic audit to consider disparities, opportunities, obstacles, etc. and recommend the changes necessary to improve the situation in a timely manner.
6. There should be about 40 instead of 20 directly elected members of parliament chosen under their own names and responsible to their constituencies, with the constituencies having recall authority, and the parliamentary top-up list should be closed.
7. Those of Amerindian ethnicity should make up not less that 15% of the members of parliament. If acting together, 50% of them from each the governing and opposition parties, vote that an executive or parliament action runs counter to the interest of Amerindians, the matter should be at least delayed say for about three months and returned to the relevant bodies for reconsideration.
8. Local democracy should be based on the principle of subsidiarity – nothing should be done at a higher level that can be done well or better at a lower level – and strict rules made to prevent the involvement of central government into local affairs.
9. A specific percentage (15% for example) of the national budget should be constitutionally set aside for regional and local authorities based on an agreed upon formula of equity and only be changed by a 2/3 majority in the National Assembly.
10. The Guyana Elections Commission, the national budgeting process, election financing, etc., should adhere to international best practice standards.
11. Without question, given Guyana’s history, there needs to be a completely new voters list, and a new one every time it is requested by a party or parties representing 33% of the seats in the National Assembly.
12. Guyana’s PR system is extremely restrictive and the ‘joinder list’ helps to make all votes count, but it should be properly institutionalized.
13. Obstacles to the participation of small parties should be reconsidered and where practicable removed.

Some party/elections business

1. Coalition Agreement – the bible of a partnership – should be made justiciable if possible.
2. A coalition leadership council that is not too unwieldly and should mirror the broad-based national structure and processes of government the coalition intends.
3. To deal with the nonfulfillment of manifesto promises and other defined difficulties, as in Germany, members of the coalition should have the right to demand that their concerns be determined and recommendations made by an independent 3-person tribunal, the chair of which will be chosen by the two other members one each chosen by the council and the complainant.
4. Other immediate issues of concern are: GECOM’s structure and processes, new list, biometrics, ethnic disparity study, UBI to counter the current misery, haphazard grants, the judiciary and separation of powers, etc.
5. Ensure gender balance at all levels.