The President’s call for unity

May 29, 2026 Editorial, News

---

Editorial…

(Kaieteur News) – At Fort Island on Monday night, President Irfaan Ali stood beneath the glow of Guyana’s 60th Independence anniversary celebrations and delivered yet another polished sermon on unity, harmony and shared destiny. It was the kind of speech that fits neatly into the occasions—measured, uplifting, and carefully worded for applause.

Yet beyond the flag-raising, beyond the patriotic spectacle and carefully choreographed symbolism, lies a political reality that refuses to be smoothed over by rhetoric alone. For all the President’s call to reject “the poison of zero-sum politics,” the lived experience of governance over the past months tells a far more complicated story—one in which dialogue with the Opposition remains strained, parliamentary engagement has been inconsistent, and constitutional consultation appears, at best, selectively applied.

This is not the first time a Guyanese Head of State has invoked unity while presiding over division. Kaieteur News has, over successive administrations, chronicled this familiar contradiction: where unity is preached in national forums, yet sidelining becomes practice in the day-to-day mechanics of governance. The result is a political culture where words of inclusion often outpace the structures meant to guarantee it.

President Ali’s assertion that “no one should seek to divide Guyana in pursuit of power” is, on the surface, difficult to dispute. But it immediately raises the question of how unity is to be achieved when key democratic channels appear weakened or bypassed. Parliament, for instance, was left in limbo for close to 100 days before a sudden announcement of a sitting was made for June 5. Meanwhile, key parliamentary committees are still to be established, and at least one constitutional commission was formed without full and proper consultation with the Leader of the Opposition as required under established democratic norms.

It is against this backdrop that the President’s appeal for “political maturity” must be assessed. Maturity in governance is not measured by speeches delivered at ceremonial events; it is measured by the willingness of the state to fully engage even its most critical stakeholders. Unity cannot be built on exclusion, nor can national cohesion be sustainably constructed on the selective application of constitutional consultation.

The President’s historical framing of Guyana’s ethnic divisions—Africans, Indians, Indigenous peoples, Portuguese, Chinese, and Mixed communities being “pitted against each other” under colonial rule is accurate in its historical context. Kaieteur News has itself consistently reflected on the lingering shadows of that colonial engineering, where divide-and-rule tactics left deep political and social scars that continue to influence contemporary discourse.

But the invocation of history must serve more than rhetorical effect. If colonialism thrived on exclusion and fragmentation, then post-Independence governance must be judged by its ability to transcend those instincts, not merely condemn them in speeches.

The President’s repeated reference to “One Guyana” as both philosophy and policy direction is ambitious in scope. “One Guyana does not mean we are all the same; it means we are all equal,” he said. It is a compelling ideal. Yet equality in governance requires more than declaratory statements—it demands institutional fairness, equal access to political participation, and a parliamentary system that functions without extended paralysis.

The absence of sustained dialogue with the Opposition, particularly on major constitutional and governance matters, continues to undermine the credibility of that vision. A nation cannot be unified through messaging alone; it must be unified through practice.

Kaieteur News has repeatedly cautioned that prosperity, if not managed with transparency and participatory governance, can become another source of division rather than unity.

Yet even here, unity at the national level must translate into unity of purpose across political divides. Territorial integrity is not the responsibility of the executive alone; it is a national position that requires bipartisan reinforcement, something that becomes more difficult when domestic political relations remain strained.

The President’s call for unity is not without merit. But unity cannot be selectively invoked at ceremonial milestones while the structures of consultation and inclusion remain uneven in operation.

Until that gap is addressed, speeches like the one delivered at Fort Island will continue to inspire applause, but also provoke scrutiny.

---

• Editorial, Fort Island, President Irfaan Ali

---