The President’s speech

Dec 20, 2025 Editorial, News

---

(Kaieteur News) – President Irfaan Ali, on Wednesday, addressed the nation and laid out what he described as his administration’s vision and plans for the next five years.

On the surface, there is nothing unusual about a head of government outlining a forward agenda. What is deeply troubling, however, is how and where this was done and more importantly, why. Traditionally, such addresses are delivered in Parliament at the opening of a new session or at another constitutionally appropriate moment. They are not mere speeches; they are part of a democratic process rooted in accountability, transparency, and respect for representative institutions. They are delivered before elected Members of Parliament from both sides of the aisle, formally recorded in the Hansard, and subjected at least in principle to scrutiny and debate.

President Ali chose instead to deliver what amounted to a parliamentary address outside of Parliament, albeit at the very venue where Parliament normally sits, and in a style indistinguishable from the conventional parliamentary ceremony. This was no accident of scheduling or logistics. It was a calculated political manoeuvre, and Guyanese should not insult their own intelligence by pretending otherwise.

The most obvious explanation lies in the government’s apparent obsession with keeping businessman Azruddin Mohamed, now the presumptive Leader of the Opposition, out of the national spotlight. By avoiding a properly constituted Parliament, the administration neatly sidestepped the presence, participation, and visibility of an opposition leadership it is clearly uncomfortable confronting. That discomfort, however, does not justify the abandonment of democratic norms.

To contort national governance procedures simply to spite or sideline a political rival is not clever politics; it is democratic vandalism. When institutions are bent to serve partisan anxieties, the entire nation pays the price. The concerns raised by opposition figures about being deliberately excluded from the event are not trivial complaints. They strike at the heart of representative democracy. Parliament is not decorative. It is not optional. It is the central forum where national agendas are presented, interrogated, amended, or rejected. To bypass it while delivering a speech that constitutionally belongs there is to weaken its authority and signal executive contempt for oversight.

This episode cannot be viewed in isolation. Parliament remains effectively paralysed. Guyana still has no formally appointed Leader of the Opposition, despite the Constitution clearly outlining the role and its importance in major state appointments—from the Police Commissioner, to the Chancellor and Chief Justice. The explanations offered so far—that the Speaker was travelling, that the Constitution sets no timeline may be legally convenient, but they are democratically hollow. Urgency seems to apply only when it benefits the executive.

Equally disturbing is the silence of those who usually posture as guardians of democracy. The diplomatic community, so vocal during elections and moments of crisis, has offered no public insistence on the reconvening of Parliament, no demand for the appointment of an Opposition Leader, and no concern about executive overreach. Guyanese are learning, perhaps painfully, that external actors will not always defend local democracy. That responsibility rests here, at home. The government’s rhetoric about inclusion, unity, and democratic values rings increasingly hollow when set against its actions. Lofty speeches cannot mask a governing style that consistently sidelines dissent, marginalises opposition voices, and treats constitutional institutions as inconveniences rather than safeguards.

Since returning to office, this PPP/C administration has repeatedly disappointed those who hoped for a break from old habits. Instead, we see a familiar pattern: centralised power, procedural manipulation, and a growing intolerance for scrutiny. Addressing the nation outside Parliament while Parliament itself is sidelined is not symbolism, it is a warning sign. Guyanese deserve better than democracy by detour. They deserve governance rooted in constitutional respect, institutional integrity, and genuine accountability. A five-year national agenda cannot be credible if it is unveiled in a manner that excludes half the country’s representation. Guyana is not a one-party state. Parliament is not optional. And democracy, once eroded in small, convenient steps, is not easily restored.

---

• democratic process, Editorial, Irfaan Ali, Parliament

---