The people’s sovereignty is not a secret

Jan 25, 2026 Letters

Dear Editor,

Dr. Walter Persaud’s response (“Sovereignty Is Not Selective,” Jan 23) is a masterclass in using 1961 legalisms to solve 2026 problems. He argues that the Canadian High Commissioner’s public calls for transparency are a “distraction” and a breach of the Vienna Convention. In doing so, he insults the intelligence of the Guyanese public by suggesting we cannot walk and chew gum at the same time—that we cannot listen to international perspectives while simultaneously building our own nation.

The Fallacy of the Silent Partner

Dr. Persaud wants a world where diplomacy happens in dark rooms and hushed whispers. He calls this “facilitation.” The rest of us call it a lack of accountability. In a modern democracy, the public has a right to know what our international partners expect of us. When High Commissioner Sébastien Sigouin advocates for electoral reform or parliamentary clarity, he isn’t “interfering” in our life; he is describing the conditions under which Canadian taxpayers and shareholders feel safe doing business here.

We must stop pretending that “internal affairs” and “global economics” are separate. They are the same thing. If our democratic house is perceived as messy, the “rent” (the cost of capital and investment) goes up for everyone. Transparency isn’t activism; it’s a prerequisite for a world-class economy.

The 1961 Muzzle vs. 2026 Reality

The Doctor leans heavily on the Vienna Convention, a document signed when the world was a collection of closed-off silos. Today, Guyana and Canada are signatories to the Inter-American Democratic Charter. This means we have already agreed that democracy is a shared regional value. You cannot invite the world’s most sophisticated mining and energy companies to your shores and then demand their governments stay silent when our democratic institutions face scrutiny. That isn’t sovereignty; it’s a “shut up and pay” policy that no serious global partner will accept.

The “Distraction” Myth

The claim that discussing a diplomat’s words “diverts national attention” is perhaps the most condescending part of the Doctor’s argument. It assumes that Guyanese citizens are so easily confused that we cannot debate a High Commissioner’s views without losing sight of our national priorities. On the contrary, these debates are the national priority. They force us to ask: Are our institutions strong enough to stand up to criticism? If the answer is yes, then the diplomat’s words shouldn’t bother us. If the answer is no, then the diplomat is simply holding up a mirror.

The Sovereignty Paradox

It remains a glaring irony that the defenders of “total sovereignty” are silent when the U.S. justice system acts as the “hatcher” for Guyanese legal matters through extradition, yet they find a Canadian tweet about electoral reform to be an existential threat. This suggests that sovereignty is being used as a shield to protect political comfort, not a principle to protect the nation.

Conclusion

True sovereignty resides in the people, not in the silence of bureaucrats. A confident, mature nation doesn’t fear the “public lecturing” of its friends; it engages with it, proves it wrong with performance, or uses it to get better. If we want Guyana to be a global leader, we must stop acting with hyper—sensitivity and start acting like a partner that embraces the lights of accountability. In the modern world, if you aren’t transparent, you aren’t trusted. It’s that simple.

Latest News