It is an indictment of Guyana’s political leadership that, decades after inclusionary democracy became a constitutional objective, the country is still marking time while those in power exercise authority without meaningful participation from other stakeholders.
The struggles of workers and the political leadership of the late Desmond Hoyte helped secure a framework intended to prevent sections of society from being excluded from national decision-making. Yet that framework remains inadequately realised, exposing the gulf between constitutional principle and political practice.
Article 13 of Guyana’s Constitution, which was assented to in 2001 by then President Bharrat Jagdeo, cannot be reduced to mere words on paper. It must be given true meaning. For this framework did not emerge by accident. Workers’ struggles, national pressure and CARICOM involvement helped advance the principle under Hoyte’s leadership.
Hoyte’s successor, Robert Corbin, continued the struggle, recognising that meaningful change required political strategy, negotiation and implementation. I recall the 2003 Communiqué with Jagdeo; engagement with the Guyana Trades Union Congress on the national budget and other matters of national importance; and approaches to international organisations and regional heads of state concerning extrajudicial killings and the role of the State. These efforts helped force a Commission of Inquiry.
Corbin also contributed to the process that led to Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow, the Father of Trade Unionism, being recognised as Guyana’s second national hero. He demonstrated that political objectives could be advanced through law, negotiation, political authority and civility. His legacy reminds us that reform is not achieved by waiting for goodwill from those who benefit from existing arrangements.
I view Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s recent overtures towards the People’s National Congress (PNC) on shared governance with considerable caution. The question is not whether the PPP is prepared to extend an olive branch, but whether it will accept meaningful constraints on unilateral political control.
If Jagdeo is serious, and the tributes to Corbin are more than political posturing, the PPP must come to the table to negotiate a framework that delivers tangible results. We must use the law to secure what political promises have repeatedly failed to deliver.
I therefore urge the parliamentary opposition to act as a single, united force and counter Jagdeo’s overtures with a substantive proposal reflecting the concerns and aspirations of parliamentary stakeholders and civil society. The opposition must not allow the governing party to dictate the terms of this national conversation or permit partisan divisions to weaken its efforts.
That proposal should identify the legislative and institutional changes required to strengthen regional and local government, establish effective consultation and broaden participation in decisions of national importance. It must be developed through engagement with opposition parliamentarians, organised labour, civil society and other relevant stakeholders. The objective must be a framework serving the national interest, not an arrangement designed merely to accommodate party leaders.
Further, the opposition must demonstrate that it can do more than react to the government. It must present practical proposals and pursue a coherent programme of reform. I firmly believe that, were Hoyte alive today, he would press for legislation to give Article 13 practical effect and demand stronger regional and local government structures. Corbin’s example likewise reminds us that political responsibility requires strategy, sustained action and results—not merely speeches and tributes.
The trade union movement has proposed measures to strengthen participation in national governance, including reform of the Appropriation Act and consideration of a two-thirds majority requirement for specified legislation. These proposals warrant serious examination, including their constitutional implications. Their purpose is to encourage cooperation and prevent one political side from unilaterally determining matters of national import.
In Guyana’s oil economy, this debate is especially urgent. The country’s growing wealth and expanding international relationships demand stronger accountability, not greater concentration of decision-making. Workers are not merely an economic resource to be mobilised when production is required. They are citizens whose rights, welfare and future are affected by State decisions.
As a constitutional stakeholder, the trade union movement possesses experience and knowledge that must inform national deliberations. The same is true of civil society and other sectors capable of contributing to national development.
Yet national decisions increasingly risk being treated as the private business of political leaders. When agreements are discussed and announced abroad, the public is entitled to understand what commitments are being made in its name, what obligations may arise and how those decisions could affect Guyana’s future.
There was a time when presidents and prime ministers addressed the nation before important overseas engagements and accounted for their outcomes upon returning. That standard of accountability must be restored. Our leaders are public servants, not masters of the people.
The same principle applies to national security and defence. These matters are too important to be treated as the exclusive preserve of the governing party. Appropriate consultation with the opposition and relevant stakeholders is essential, subject to legitimate confidentiality requirements.
President Irfaan Ali must recognise that his responsibilities extend to the entire country, including citizens who did not vote for him. An electoral mandate does not confer the right to disregard other elected representatives or exclude legitimate stakeholders from decisions affecting the nation.
When Guyana cannot cooperate on matters affecting its own well-being, how can it effectively protect its interests amidst external pressures and competing international agendas? International partners will pursue their own national interests. Guyana must ensure that political dysfunction does not weaken its ability to protect ours.
Persons cannot sincerely pay tribute to Hoyte and Corbin while neglecting the principles they pursued. If their contributions are genuinely valued, their legacy must be advanced through legislation, stronger institutions and meaningful engagement among government, opposition, organised labour and civil society.
Our salvation is not beyond our reach. Article 13, the legislative process and the collective experience of our citizens provide avenues for meaningful change. What is missing is the political will to use them.
As the old people say, “cat will eat our dinner” if we continue to sit back while the mechanisms for reform are ignored.
The parliamentary opposition must unite around a credible proposal that places the national interest above partisan considerations, and the government must be challenged to engage with it seriously.
Article 13 must become more than a constitutional promise. It must be given practical effect through law, political will and meaningful public participation.
