The PPP/C needs a heavy dose of Internal Democracy

May 18, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – The photographs told the story before a single word was spoken. At the recent meeting between the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party and party activists from the East Bank of Demerara, Linden and reportedly other areas, the arrangement of the room itself revealed the state of the party.

There was the elevated head table. Then there were the rows of chairs stretching out before it. On one side sat the leadership. On the other sat the listeners.

This seating arrangement reflected what many grassroots supporters have quietly complained about for years: the steady transformation of the PPP/C from a mass political movement into a highly centralised machine where decisions flow downward from a small circle and everybody else is expected to clap, nod and obey.

The meeting was believed to be part of preparations for local government elections later this year. But if that gathering was supposed to energise party democracy, the setup suggested the exact opposite. It looked less like a consultation and more like an instruction session.

And that is precisely the danger now facing the PPP/C. The party was not built by silent spectators. It was built by activists, sugar workers, market vendors, farmers, teachers and ordinary people who believed they had a voice and a stake in shaping policy. It was built through struggle, argument, debate and participation.

But today, increasingly, many within the party believe that power resides in one place alone. Freedom House decides. Others endorse.

That is not healthy for any political movement. It is certainly not healthy for local democracy.

The entire purpose of Local Government Elections is to give communities the power to choose people who understand their needs and who are directly accountable to them. Neighbourhood Democratic Councils are supposed to represent villages and communities — not function as extensions of central command.

Yet there is growing concern that candidates for these councils will be selected not by the grassroots groups themselves, but by directives from above.

That is backwards. If party groups on the East Bank, in Linden and elsewhere are serious about having a voice in the future of their communities, they must insist on internal democracy now. Not tomorrow. Not after the elections. Now.

They must demand the right to meet among themselves and choose their own representatives to contest local government elections. Those choices should emerge from the bottom upward — not from the top downward.

And they must tell Freedom House in clear and unmistakable language that centralized political control over local candidate selection is unacceptable.

Because local democracy cannot survive if every decision is pre-packaged before the grassroots even enter the room.

A political party that refuses to trust its own members to choose candidates is a party that is slowly suffocating itself.

And let us speak plainly about another issue many supporters whisper privately but are afraid to say publicly: the emergence of what many increasingly describe as a one-man show.

Every strong political party requires leadership. But leadership and domination are not the same thing.

When party organs become weak, when internal debate is stifled, when members feel they cannot question decisions, when every major issue appears to revolve around the authority of one individual, democracy within the party begins to rot from the inside out.

The PPP/C must be very careful.

History is filled with political parties that became trapped by personality-driven leadership structures. Once that culture takes root, institutions weaken, independent voices disappear and loyalty becomes valued above competence and honesty.

Eventually fear replaces discussion.

And once fear enters political organizations, decline usually follows.

The irony is that Local Government Elections should be the easiest place to practice democracy. Residents know who works. They know who listens. They know who only appears at election time carrying promises and party flags.

Communities are capable of selecting their own representatives. They do not need political babysitters from Georgetown making decisions for them.

If the PPP/C truly believes in empowering people, then let the party groups decide who their candidates should be. Let there be nominations from the grassroots. Let party activists vote freely without pressure or interference.

That is democracy. Anything else is stage management.

And the activists themselves must accept responsibility. Complaining quietly after meetings is not enough. Murmuring in corners changes nothing. If members surrender their voice voluntarily, then centralised control becomes inevitable.

Internal democracy is never handed down as a gift. It must be demanded and defended. The party groups must therefore draw a line now and insist that local representatives come from local choices.

One-man rule must not be allowed to tighten its grip within the PPP/C. And any inclination toward such political control must be firmly and decisively crushed before it becomes the accepted culture of the party.

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

---

• Internal Democracy, Peeping Tom, PPP/C

---