The PPPC is an ungrateful dog

Feb 22, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – There is an old saying that sometimes we build our own trap and then complain when we are caught in it. Today, the leadership of the PPP seems to be in just such a bind — a bind of its own making.

For years, the party has claimed that it practices internal democracy. It speaks proudly about open discussion, robust debate, and the right of members to express their views inside the party. On paper, that sounds healthy. But in practice, another rule looms large: collective responsibility. Once a decision is taken, every leader must defend it in public. No dissent. No criticism. No deviation.

That is where the contradiction lies.

You cannot boast about internal democracy while enforcing a code of silence outside the room. If leaders are forbidden from publicly disagreeing with party or government decisions, then what kind of democracy is that? It begins to look less like debate and more like discipline.

Take the issue of Gaza. One prominent PPP leader has made his personal position clear. He has spoken passionately about the suffering of Palestinians and has even gone as far as calling on CARICOM to break relations with Israel. That is a strong and principled stance. But here is the problem: he cannot demand the same of his own party and government.

Why? Because the PPPC government has stubbornly refused to break diplomatic and economic ties with Israel. To openly call on his own government to do so would be seen as criticism. And criticism, under party rules and the doctrine of collective responsibility, is not allowed.

So, the leader speaks boldly about what CARICOM should do, but remains silent about what his own government refuses to do. That is the bind.

Then there is Cuba.

Many members of the so-called “Old Guard” in the PPP have long opposed the United States’ decades-long pressure on Cuba. They have spoken against embargoes and sanctions that have deepened economic hardship for ordinary Cubans. Today, recent actions restricting oil supplies to the island have made life even harder.

No doubt, many within the PPP leadership privately condemn this strangulation. No doubt, they sympathize with the Cuban people.

But when the PPP government halted the agreement that allowed Cuban doctors to serve here — a move widely seen as bowing to external pressure — silence filled the air. Leaders who may well have disagreed said nothing. They could not say anything. To do so would be to publicly criticize their own government. And that is not allowed by the party’s ‘democratic’ rules.

And so, the party that once stood firmly with Cuba now appears to have joined the very forces it used to condemn. It is hard not to imagine that Cheddi Jagan, the party’s founding figure, would be deeply troubled by such a turn.

Ironically, many of these same leaders will likely join in supporting statements from former Caribbean heads of government calling for an end to the strangulation of Cuba. They will condemn imperialism for its recent assault in Cuba but will remain silent about their own government’s retreat.

Cuba will endure, as it always has. It has survived in the past. The real question is whether the PPP can endure the loss of its dignity.

And then we come to Stabroek News.

Today, we read statements from PPP leaders praising the newspaper. Warm words. Respectful language. Appreciation for its role in public life.

Yet none of them have publicly condemned the government’s embargo on payments to that very newspaper. None had in the past openly criticized the withholding of advertisements that placed financial pressure on the publication. It is well known that many within the party were uncomfortable with those actions. Some were said to be strongly opposed.

But again, the rules of the party demanded silence.

There was one exception: Mrs.  Janet Jagan. She spoke her mind. But she was a special case — an untouchable figure in the party’s history, not easily disciplined. The ordinary leaders of today do not enjoy that freedom. They are bound by the same rules she helped to shape.

And so, we see the pattern.

On Gaza, they cannot challenge their government’s stance. On Cuba, they cannot question the halting of cooperation. On Stabroek News, they cannot criticize actions that many of them privately opposed. They are free to speak — as long as they say nothing that contradicts the official line.

That is the bind.

The PPP wants to present itself as democratic, principled, and independent. But collective responsibility, as practised, has become a gag. It may preserve unity on the surface, but it breeds quiet frustration beneath.

In the end, a party must choose. Either it allows its leaders genuine freedom to speak openly, even at the risk of public disagreement, or it accepts that its internal democracy is limited to closed rooms.

You cannot have it both ways forever.

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

---

• CARICOM, Peeping Tom, PPPC, ungrateful dog

---