IN recent days, the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government has had to contend with contradictory views of opposition members on the $100,000 cash grant.
However, rather than offering constructive criticism, opposition figures seem to have adopted a pattern of hypocrisy and double standards in their responses.

General Secretary of the PPP, Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, has rightly called out these inconsistencies, highlighting how opposition members continually denounce government initiatives only to later claim ownership or criticise the government’s implementation without providing viable alternatives.
During a press conference at Freedom House, Dr Jagdeo exposed the insensitivity behind recent remarks from David Patterson, Chairman of the Alliance For Change (AFC).

At an AFC meeting, Patterson made disparaging comments suggesting that Afro-Guyanese grant recipients would misuse the funds on luxuries such as hair and nails, instead of essentials.
Such a view not only trivialises the financial struggles of ordinary citizens, but it also disregards the reality that most people prioritise housing, education, and family needs over unnecessary indulgences.
This blanket judgment undermines citizens’ intelligence and autonomy, implying that they need guidance on how to spend a much-needed financial-aid grant.

Jagdeo further questioned Patterson’s credibility, given his past controversies involving the misuse of public funds during his tenure as a minister in the APNU+AFC administration. It is telling that someone who has accepted public gifts, including over $500,000 in jewellery, now feels entitled to dictate how ordinary Guyanese should spend a fraction of that amount on their families.
The backlash against Patterson on social media, with many voicing discontent over his tone-deaf comments, should be a wake-up call that this kind of elitism is not only outdated, but insulting.

Similarly, Dr Jagdeo addressed recent criticisms from Economist Clive Thomas, who, despite his past advocacy for direct cash transfers to citizens, has now questioned the current government’s distribution methods.
This inconsistency raises concerns over the opposition’s motives—is the objection truly about policy, or is it simply a bid to undermine the PPP? Dr Jagdeo pointed out that Thomas’s 2018 Buxton Proposal had advocated cash transfers to Guyanese from oil revenues, a vision largely in line with the government’s efforts. The question remains: why the shift in stance now?

Former Finance Minister Winston Jordan’s critique followed suit, as he too took issue with the grant’s rollout, despite his administration previously ruling out similar cash transfers. The opposition’s constant flip-flopping on policies—criticising them at first, then calling for similar measures once implemented—highlights a troubling lack of consistency that risks eroding public trust.
Additionally, Dr Jagdeo drew attention to a broader issue of double standards in the realm of human rights advocacy.

Reflecting on the recent displacement of squatters in Mocha/Arcadia by an APNU+AFC-run Neighbourhood Democratic Council (NDC), Jagdeo criticised so-called human rights activists who had remained silent.
When the PPP-led government proposed relocation plans for squatters in the path of a new highway, activists had vocalised concerns internationally. Yet, when the NDC forcibly displaced squatters, these same activists were conspicuously quiet.

The selective outrage is deeply concerning, as it reveals a bias that does a disservice to those genuinely advocating for equity and fairness. In another example, a black-owned construction company building a school in Region 10 has come under undue scrutiny, likely due to perceived political affiliations. Such treatment runs counter to the advocacy for fair opportunities for young black businesses, yet the usual defenders of these causes have been uncharacteristically silent.

Ultimately, this pattern of inconsistency and double standards undermines the credibility of the opposition and self-proclaimed advocates.

The $100,000 cash grant is not a political handout; it is a response to the real financial burdens faced by citizens amid rising global costs. Rather than criticising the government for supporting Guyanese families, the opposition would do well to contribute positively to the dialogue on national issues.

The PPP has implemented a policy that is popular among the people and addresses their immediate needs. It is high time for the opposition to rise above petty criticisms and engage in a constructive, principled discourse that truly serves the people of Guyana.