The hard truth WIN must confront

Nov 26, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – The We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party has every reason to be pleased by its performance in the last general and regional elections. In the post-Independence history of Caribbean politics, few first-time political parties have ever done as well in its very first outing as WIN has done.

Securing sixteen parliamentary seats on debut is nothing short of remarkable. It signals that a sizeable segment of the electorate is hungry for a break from the country’s traditional and polarized political choices. It also suggests that WIN, unlike previous third forces, has managed to harness a moment of national restlessness, projecting itself into the imagination of the underclasses.

But WIN must resist the temptation to get swell-headed. Sixteen seats may look impressive on paper, but numbers inside a legislature do not automatically translate into political influence. WIN should neither delude itself about its position nor assume that its parliamentary presence will significantly alter the political equations in the National Assembly.

The hard truth is that, in our political culture, formal power inside the Assembly is a case of who has the majority calling the shots, even it is a one-seat majority that counts for absolute domination in our Westminster-styled parliamentary system. A third party, even with a strong debut, does not change that overnight.

WIN’s real strength does not lie within the four walls of the National Assembly. It lies outside—squarely in its capacity to mobilize public sentiment. The current pussyfooting and hesitation over convening the meeting to elect a Leader of the Opposition is a clear reminder that constitutional entitlements do not enforce themselves.

Threatening court action will not resolve the matter. The Courts will not direct the National Assembly. It will not encroach on the sovereignty of the National Assembly. The National Assembly dictates its own rules and no court can instruct it unless its actions are in violation of the laws of Guyana or the Constitution.

Nor will appealing to abstract principles of parliamentary democracy suddenly jolt the political establishment into respecting procedural norms. What will make the difference—what has always made the difference in Guyana—is sustained, peaceful, voluntary mass mobilization.

If WIN wishes to influence outcomes, it must understand the power of the street. Not the power of one-day token picketing by a handful of supporters. Not orchestrated gatherings reliant on hired attendees. WIN’s real test, indeed, the measure of whether it can transform its electoral momentum into genuine political authority will be its ability to bring thousands of peaceful demonstrators into the streets. Voluntarily. Consistently. And purposefully.

The demand for the summoning of the meeting to elect a Leader of the Opposition cannot be left to legal arguments or indignant speeches. It must evolve into a national call one that resonates with ordinary citizens who see the refusal to convene the meeting as a direct affront to the people.  WIN must therefore cultivate an organized, disciplined, and motivated base capable of sustained peaceful civic action. Without that, its 16 seats risk becoming, at best, symbolic; at worst, irrelevant.

If WIN places too much faith in parliamentary politics, it will quickly discover the limits of its influence. The Assembly, for all its formal authority, is not where political tides shift in Guyana. Change has always come from outside—from public pressure, from collective outrage, from the refusal of citizens to accept constitutional evasions. WIN’s leadership must come to terms with this enduring reality. Parliamentary speeches will not force action. Press releases will not generate urgency. Only a mass movement will.

This does not mean that WIN should dismiss its parliamentary role. Rather, it must understand that the Assembly is merely one arena among many—and not even the most decisive one. Its MPs should use their seats to articulate grievances, draw attention to constitutional lapses, and keep issues alive in the public consciousness. But these efforts must be twinned with strategic mobilization. The party must organize at the community level, build alliances with civic groups, and cultivate legitimacy among the underclasses who feel excluded from the prevailing political order.

WIN’s triumph in the election was only a beginning not a culmination. It was a message from the underclasses to those in power and it for WIN to understand that message.  What the party does with that platform will determine whether its surprising debut becomes a fleeting moment or the start of a real change.

If WIN understands this, if it avoids the intoxication of its early success and invests instead in disciplined, peaceful, large-scale civic activism it may yet broaden democratic space in Guyana. But if it overestimates the power of its parliamentary presence, it risks becoming just another footnote in the long list of third-party experiments that began with promise but ended in disappointment.

The choice, ultimately, is WINs to make. But who makes that decision? The party or one man?

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

---

• Peeping Tom

---