Weakness in Numbers (WIN)

May 17, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – The recent decision by the police to rescind the personal firearm licences held by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed (AZMO) and his father has raised troubling questions about due process, proportionality and political fairness in Guyana. It has also reopened debate about whether the Mohamed family is being subjected to continued political prosecution under the guise of administrative action.

Reports carried in the press suggested that the justification for revoking the licences related to indictments in a foreign jurisdiction. But indictments are not convictions. They are accusations which must still be answered in a court of law. The Mohameds have not yet had their day in court on those matters. And until guilt is established, it becomes difficult for many citizens to understand why such allegations should automatically override their right to personal protection, especially given the family’s wealth.

What made the situation even more puzzling was the suggestion that the Mohameds should be invited to give reasons why their firearm licences should not be revoked. This was after the licences had already been rescinded. That is not how fairness normally works. One would expect that a person should first be allowed to respond before punitive action is taken. Instead, this appeared to many observers as though the cart had been placed firmly before the horse.

There is therefore an opinion, shared widely in sections of society, that this latest move forms part of a broader process of political persecution against the Mohamed family. Whether one agrees with that interpretation or not, the perception itself is politically significant.

If indeed this was political overreach, however, another question immediately arises. Why was it allowed to happen so easily given the considerable electoral support commanded by the Mohamed political movement? And given that AZMO is now officially the Leader of the Opposition in Guyana

The WIN party headed by AZMO secured approximately 109,000 votes at the last General and Regional Elections. That is not a minor showing. That is a substantial national constituency. In fact, it secured for WIN, the designation of the country’s main opposition.

Had even ten percent of those supporters been mobilized onto the streets in peaceful demonstration, the governing People’s Progressive Party/Civic may have been far more cautious and circumspect about taking actions perceived as hostile toward the family. But that has not happened.

The We Invest in Nationhood party, headed by AZMO, has so far been either unable or unwilling to bring out large numbers of supporters in sustained peaceful protest. In truth, even attracting one hundred persons consistently onto a protest line has proven difficult. And because of this weakness in visible street mobilization, the government may feel politically emboldened in pursuing actions against the family without fear of significant public pushback.

Yet this situation also exposes an important political reality. Electoral strength and protest strength are not the same thing. A person may receive thousands of votes at election time but still struggle to mobilize supporters for direct action in the streets. Voting is private, easy and low-risk. Protesting is public, uncomfortable and often risky. Many citizens who quietly support a political figure at the ballot box may never be willing to stand publicly in a protest march on that person’s behalf. That distinction matters.

There is also another important factor at play: the historical discrediting of political protests in Guyana. The memories of the unrest following the 1997 elections still linger in the national consciousness. The PNCR protests aimed at seeking to overturn that party’s electoral loss to Janet Jagan’s PPPC descended into chaos and mayhem. Businesses suffered. Communities were traumatized. Persons were beaten and robbed and arson took place on a large scale.

Since then, political parties have become deeply wary of protest action. Even peaceful demonstrations carry the fear that events may spiral out of control. No political organization wants to be blamed for instability. As a result, many opposition movements now approach protest politics cautiously, aware that public sympathy can evaporate quickly once disorder enters the picture.

But there is another uncomfortable belief circulating in political circles. There are those who argue that WIN would only be able to mobilize significant protest numbers through financial inducements. In other words, by paying protestors. Whether this perception is fair or unfair, it creates another strategic problem for the movement.

Paid protestors are rarely deeply committed to a cause. They are committed to the payment they receive. Once money becomes the fuel of protest action, the moral force of the demonstration weakens considerably. Governments understand this. A protest movement sustained by genuine conviction is politically dangerous. A protest movement sustained by stipends is far easier to outlast and discredit.

This leaves WIN in a difficult political position. It has demonstrated electoral reach but not mass mobilization capacity. It has public sympathy in some quarters but limited visible activism on the ground. And that gap between ballot support and street presence may well explain why actions against the family continue despite their political prominence.

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

---

• Azruddin Mohamed, numbers, Peeping Tom, weakness, win

---