TODAY marks one year since Guyanese cast their ballots in the General and Regional Elections (GRE), which has seen a shift in the country’s political dynamics. After 23 years in the Executive, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) loss the confidence of the majority and was placed in the Opposition.Preceded the 2015 GRE was the results of 2011, where the incumbent government lost majority control of the National Assembly but won the majority to form the Executive. 2011 was the first time in post-independent Guyana a sitting Executive did not have majority control in the National Assembly. This signalled the beginning of obvious change in the determination of voting patterns and results.

Citizens became more alert and interested in the management of the country’s affairs and conduct of their elected representatives in the discharge of duties on their behalf. This level of awareness and consciousness were in part influenced by global dynamics, a few local militant voices, and increasing presence and access to media, formal and social.

Guyanese not only had the opportunity to share their experiences and engage in feedback unhindered by geographic constrain, but also benefitted from interaction with overseas counterparts and events happening in other countries. This atmosphere educated and served as motivation more particularly for the young and techno savvy to get involved in politics.

The young, which makes up more than half of the population and once considered a relative apathetic voting bloc rose from this state and decided they were going to ‘Vote like a Boss.’ The vote for them in 2015 represented an important tool to personally effect change in their lives through the political process.

To the incumbent’s credit – A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and Alliance For Change (AFC) – during their period in opposition and having held the majority in the Legislature, they succeeded in shining light on the management of the nation’s business under the presidency of Messrs Bharrat Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar. Exposes of mismanagement of the nation’s resources and intolerance demonstrated to those who questioned same contributed to the people registering their dissatisfaction via their votes.

The APNU+AFC, running as a single force against the PPP/C and the platform they campaigned on, instilled confidence among sections of society that  a change, consistent with their desire, is possible and worthy of working towards. This platform addressed what the people considered important issues, such as unity, accountable government, respect for citizens’ views, rights and the rule of law, and the promise of a ‘Good Life.’

One year after there will obviously be reflections and deliberations as to whether 11th May 2015 turned out or is morphing into what the people voted for. This is the nature of free speech in a democracy. That being said, there has been some movement in the direction, as promised to the people. For instance, local government elections were held, the Anti-Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism Bill passed, reduction of the Berbice Bridge toll, restoration of sanitary conditions in Georgetown and its environs.

Conversely, there continue to be reservation expressed in the media, formal and social, that the government is slow on addressing issues impacting on Labour Relations, allegations of corruption and recommendations as highlighted in forensic audits, and some in government are taking on what the people considered the despised characteristics of their predecessors.

In the first year government would have been on a learning curve, which included teething problems, expected during this period. That being said, the government has to be mindful of the awareness and awakening of militancy in the people.  Where conduct considered unsavory during former governments is not unreasonable to expect adaptation of these will create outcries.

From 2011 Guyanese are seeing themselves personally invested in the political processes. President David Granger and Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, in recognition and appreciation of this, campaigned on commitment to govern through inclusionary democracy. On assuming offices the people were told by the president to hold his administration accountable.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude commentaries on governance are the results of personal investment in the processes and commitment given by the governing parties during the campaign period and on assuming office.