Open Letter to The Carter Center: On the freedom of elections and the tyranny of tweets

Jul 03, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Dear Carter Center,

You once played an instrumental role in the rebirth of democracies — from Nicaragua to Nepal and from Liberia to Guyana. But in all of these countries, there have been setbacks, except in Guyana. That is … until now. This is why I write not with honey-coated language but with the sharp instrument of truth—blunt, uncomfortable, and necessary.

The scandal that now envelops the ruling People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) government is not merely an unfortunate episode of political misjudgment. It is part of what is now a campaign of harassment against a political rival. And in respect to elections, it represents an open desecration of the very principles upon which free elections rest.

The government, through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has seen it fit to spend US$50,000 per month—public funds, not party coffers—to hire a lobbying firm in Washington, D.C. Regrettably it is now being revealed that the firm scripted tweets which constitute an attack against a political rival of the PPPC.

The taxpayers of Guyana are now involuntary sponsors of a smear campaign against one of their fellow citizens. And not just any citizen—but a man with the temerity to challenge the ruling party at the ballot box. The man, known as AZMO, has announced that he is running for elections this year. This means that he is a Presidential candidate.

The government claims AZMO is a non-threat, a sideshow, a distraction. And yet, it is believed that it is behind the mobilisation of the tweets against AZMO. One wonders if he is so irrelevant, why the desperation?

No fewer than five defamatory tweets were reportedly sent to a U.S. Congressman. These were not policy briefs, not investment pitches, not geopolitical white papers—but tweets. These tweets were conceived to label a domestic opponent a “Maduro puppet,” a threat to hemispheric democracy, a vector of communist dictatorship—language that would be risible if not so reckless.

And this is only the visible tip of the iceberg. On the ground in Guyana, Team Mohamed faces intimidation, harassment, and public vilification—some overt, some quietly whispered but no less dangerous. Its campaign entourage is shouted down in villages. On social media, doormats of the government heap scorn, throw shade and hurl invectives against AZMO. But worst of all is the fact that state agencies are being marshalled with sudden interest in their taxes, their permits, their every bureaucratic detail, as if by coincidence alone.

This is not the conduct of a government confident in its popular support. This is the conduct of a party fearful of defeat and prepared to pervert the machinery of the state to avert it. And while international observers may be tempted to focus on procedural fairness—ID cards, ballot boxes, polling hours—let us remember: an election can be fair in form but utterly unfree in function.

What is freedom if opposition candidates must campaign under constant threat of state reprisal? What is freedom if the ruling party employs foreign agents to poison the global narrative against its rivals? What is freedom if state institutions become tools not of governance, but of vengeance? This is not electoral democracy. This is authoritarianism by installment plan.

The Carter Center must not turn a blind eye or offer polite euphemisms when what is unfolding in Guyana is the strategic hollowing out of political competition. A democracy without real contest is not a democracy at all; it is a costume drama, a farce with ballot boxes. And Guyanese are not extras on this stage—they are its rightful directors.

Do not be distracted by the outward rituals. The voting may be orderly. The ink may stain the fingers. The results may be tabulated accurately this time around. But if the environment of fear and propaganda persists—if one party controls the purse, the State, and now the tweets—then the freedom of the election may be compromised, and the legitimacy of its outcome is open to question.

You, Carter Center, know too well the dangers of staying silent when the trappings of democracy are used to mask its erosion. Guyana is not yet lost—but the signs are unmistakable. You must speak now against the weaponisation of the State and the descent into foreign-funded political warfare.

The people of Guyana deserve more than the right to vote. They deserve an election that is not only fair but free in that it allows everyone who wishes to contest to do so without fear or intimidation.

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

 

---

• AZMO, Guyana, Nicaragua, party coffers, Peeping Tom, PPPC

---