IN the realm of politics, ideas and policies are the bedrock on which parties either thrive or falter.

The Alliance for Change (AFC), once seen as a viable “third-force” in Guyanese politics, now appears to be faltering on the latter path, devoid of substance and originality.

The recent critique from Leonard Craig, a former AFC executive, reveals just how far the party has strayed from its founding principles. Craig’s scathing column, aptly titled “AFC’s New Latrine Activism”, accuses the party of abandoning real political discourse in favour of cheap, misleading rhetoric designed to prey on the vulnerable.

At the heart of Craig’s critique is the AFC’s focus on pit latrines in schools, a policy issue that party leader Nigel Hughes has amplified in recent months. It’s a curious choice of subject, given the AFC’s previously grandiose promises and aspirations for national development. The notion that pit latrines could rise to the level of a “flagship” issue for the AFC underscores Craig’s central argument: The party has lost its way.

What makes this descent even more troubling is the fact that the AFC is now seemingly relying on fabricated or exaggerated claims to manipulate public opinion. Craig points out that the party has turned to social media, Facebook in particular, as a platform for spreading baseless narratives. This shift from policy-driven debate to sensationalism is a troubling sign of desperation, as the party struggles to maintain relevance in the face of dwindling public support.

The AFC’s focus on vulnerable segments of the population, feeding them misinformed rhetoric, is not only irresponsible but also dangerous. It plays into the very real frustrations that many citizens feel regarding the country’s development, particularly in relation to the anticipated benefits from Guyana’s burgeoning oil wealth.

Instead of offering solutions or meaningful critiques of the government’s handling of these funds, the AFC has resorted to creating divisive narratives. This is not the behaviour of a party committed to constructive opposition, but of one that is more interested in stirring unrest than in offering alternatives. If the AFC was genuinely concerned about the state of sanitation in schools, it would have been more forthcoming about the legacy of its own time in government.

As Craig points out, many of these pit latrines existed under the AFC’s tenure in office, and some were even built or neglected by the very administration that Hughes now criticises.

This selective outrage highlights the hypocrisy that has come to define the AFC’s approach in recent years. While it is easy to point fingers at the current administration, the AFC’s own track record is far from exemplary. The fact that many of the pit latrines still in existence are located in regions managed by APNU+AFC-controlled Regional Democratic Councils (RDCs) is a stark reminder of the party’s own failures. Moreover, the funds to improve these facilities have already been allocated, as Craig notes, yet the AFC has done little to advocate for their timely execution.

Craig’s column is not just a critique of the AFC’s current leadership but a reflection of the broader disillusionment that many of its former supporters now feel. The AFC was once seen as a fresh voice in Guyanese politics; a party with bold ideas and a commitment to change. Today, it has devolved into a political entity more focused on Facebook talking points than on real solutions. This shift, as Craig astutely observes, is emblematic of a party that is “completely barren of ideas”.

The tragedy of the AFC’s decline is not just the loss of a once-promising political force, but the impact it has on the broader political landscape. Instead of seizing the opportunity to offer constructive criticism and policy alternatives, the AFC has chosen to cling to sensationalism and misinformation, a strategy that will only serve to alienate the very people it seeks to engage.