Latest update September 22nd, 2026 10:30 AM
Meeting with opposition
(Kaieteur News) – The latest standoff between President Irfaan Ali and the parliamentary opposition has once again exposed the crooked way democracy is being practised in Guyana: what does consultation mean if elected representatives are invited to the table only after the government has already shaped the decision?
The opposition parties’ refusal to attend meetings called by the president has been criticised as obstructionist. But the stated reasons for their absence deserve examination on their own terms. Both WIN and APNU have raised concerns about meetings being convened without a clear agenda or supporting documentation, arguing that parliamentary committees cannot properly engage on matters of national importance without knowing what they are being asked to consider.
That is not an unreasonable institutional question.
According to the government’s account, President Ali met with members of the Parliamentary Sub-Committee on Foreign Relations to discuss matters including the International Court of Justice proceedings and the third-country national agreement with the United States. The president also indicated that his administration intends to strengthen engagement with parliamentary committees in an open, transparent and accountable manner.
Yet the opposition says it sought clarification about the purpose of the meetings and requested an agenda, but did not receive a meaningful response.
The difference between those two positions is precisely why consultation must be structured rather than improvised.
Parliament is not an extension of the executive. Parliamentary committees exist to scrutinise government policy, examine proposals and provide oversight. If members are expected to discuss foreign policy, international agreements or major economic commitments, they should have sufficient information to understand the issues, assess the implications and formulate questions.
Otherwise, there is a danger that “consultation” becomes little more than notification.
The issue is larger than the latest disagreement between President Ali and the opposition. It concerns the functioning of Guyana’s democratic institutions.
Parliament should not be convened only when the administration considers it necessary or convenient. The legislature must be able to perform its constitutional role consistently, with adequate time and information to scrutinise the executive.
The same principle should extend beyond parliament. Civil society organisations, professional bodies, trade unions, business groups and other stakeholders should not be treated as participants only after major decisions have effectively been settled. Where issues carry significant financial, economic, social or international consequences, broader consultation can expose weaknesses, identify risks and produce better-informed decisions.
But the responsibility does not rest solely with the government.
An opposition has a duty to scrutinise the executive, but it also has a responsibility to participate constructively in the institutions through which that scrutiny is exercised. Not every disagreement should become a boycott, and an invitation to engage should not automatically be presumed to be insincere.
The answer, therefore, is not for either side to retreat further into confrontation.
The answer is to establish clearer rules of engagement.
Meetings involving parliamentary committees should have defined agendas. Relevant documents should be circulated sufficiently in advance. There should be an opportunity for questions and substantive responses. Where decisions are still capable of being influenced, that should be made clear. And where government has already made a decision, parliament should be told plainly that the purpose of the meeting is information or explanation rather than consultation.
This would remove much of the ambiguity surrounding these encounters.
Guyana’s democracy cannot be measured merely by the existence of elections or the presence of opposition MPs in parliament. It must also be measured by the quality of the relationship between the executive and legislature, and by whether institutions are permitted to perform their respective functions.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
Website Hits
Blunt of the day
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
