The PPP is instigating election hostility

Jun 30, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – There’s a story, now well-etched in Guyana’s political folklore. It’s the story of Whim village—specifically, the northern side of Whim, which for years, under the PNC, remained cloaked in darkness, not due to any technical limitation, but because of the personal vindictiveness of then-President Forbes Burnham.

Electricity, a basic amenity, flowed freely to neighboring villages and even to the southern side of Whim where the police station, court, and government quarters were situated. But the predominantly Indo-Guyanese residents of the northern side were denied that simple necessity.

One day, the PNC planned a campaign meeting in Whim—deep in PPP territory—and Burnham himself was slated to speak. The PPP, in a stunning act of political theatre, tied two donkeys and a horse at the site of the meeting. As the story goes, a heckler demanded to know when Whim would finally receive electricity. Burnham, known for his sharp tongue, replied, “Why donkey and horse want electricity?” It was a cruel jab, one that reduced the residents to animals and mocked their deprivation.

Fast forward to today, and it seems the PPP has learned more than a few tricks from the man they claim to despise. Last week, Team Mohamed ventured into another PPP stronghold as part of their outreach campaign. But instead of being met with democratic civility, they were greeted by an effigy of a donkey—eerily echoing the Whim incident decades earlier. Later, they encountered open hostility from a mob of PPP supporters who attempted to chase them out of the community. This wasn’t an isolated incident. Across several PPP-dominated areas, Team Mohamed has faced varying degrees of harassment and intimidation.

Let’s be blunt: this is not democracy. This is not what free and fair elections look like. And this is certainly not the behavior of a party that claims to be the standard-bearer of democratic values in Guyana. What is deeply ironic—if not outright hypocritical—is the PPP’s long-standing narrative that it is the victim of electoral intimidation. They have, with no small measure of self-righteousness, claimed that their campaigns in PNC areas have been met with stones, jeers, and even urine. And yes, those acts too deserve condemnation.

But when the same PPP turns around and incites or enables the same brand of hostility against its opponents, it forfeits the moral high ground. Worse, it fuels a cycle of retaliatory violence that can only end in tragedy.

The PPP’s efforts to monopolize political space and chase out those they deem unworthy of contesting elections is not just wrong—it’s dangerous. It portends a campaign season marred by tit-for-tat aggression, community flashpoints, and eventually, electoral violence. Political incitement in ethnically sensitive communities is not a game. It is a match tossed into a barrel of dry gunpowder.

This is not 1964. This is not 1997. Guyana has come too far—economically, socially, and politically—to regress into a state of fear, division, and voter suppression. The nation cannot afford another round of “chase dem out” politics, where communities become no-go zones for political opponents, and where differences in party affiliation are treated as declarations of war.

What the PPP leadership needs to understand—and quickly—is that democracy dies not with a bullet, but with a sneer, a shove, and a shouted order to get out. By failing to call off the dogs of intimidation, the PPP risks turning this campaign season into a tinderbox. A party that feels secure in its support does not resort to hecklers and hostility. It does not need to weaponize its supporters against rival candidates. And it certainly does not need to behave like Burnham, whose legacy of political pettiness they once so vehemently opposed.

Make no mistake: if this conduct continues unchecked, it will embolden extremists on all sides. The PPP will not be able to control the backlash when it begins its own campaign rallies in areas where it is weak. The very tactics they now condone may be turned against them, and the result will not be democratic debate, but civic disorder.

Guyanese voters deserve better. They deserve rallies, not riots. They deserve to hear every voice, not just the one that currently holds power. They deserve to cast their ballots free from fear, not amid the howls of political mobs. The election campaign must be peaceful, fair, and open to all. History is littered with the remains of democracies that allowed political intolerance to masquerade as strength. If the PPP continues down this path, it may soon find itself the architect of the very political hostility it has long claimed to oppose. In the end, the question is not whether donkeys and horses need light—but whether the PPP still believes that the people of Guyana deserve the light of democracy.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)  

---

• Election hostility, Guyana Elections 2025, Guyana’s political folklore, Peeping Tom

---