AS the 2025 General and Regional

Elections approach, the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) and the Alliance for Change (AFC) are scrambling to forge coalitions and partnerships in a bid to effectively challenge the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).

This frantic pursuit is not merely a strategic manoeuvre; it reflects a deep-seated desperation stemming from their previous failures and the realisation that their individual platforms may not resonate strongly enough with voters. Ironically, these parties, which have vocally criticised their coalition partners during their time in office from 2015 to 2020, now find themselves in a position where they must reconcile their past grievances with the necessity of collaboration.

The WPA’s departure from the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) coalition in 2020 was marked by accusations of disrespect and unilateral decision-making by the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), the dominant party within APNU. The WPA cited repeated violations of coalition principles, including a lack of consultation on critical decisions, and the marginalisation of smaller parties like itself. The WPA’s leadership lamented that they had been “bludgeoned” by the PNC/R, leading to their withdrawal from a partnership that had left them feeling voiceless and sidelined.

The AFC had similarly expressed dissatisfaction with its treatment within the coalition framework, claiming that its contributions were often overlooked or dismissed. Both parties now seem to overlook these past grievances as they seek to unite against a common adversary: The PPP/C, which currently holds significant sway over Guyana’s political landscape.

In recent months, the WPA, in particular, has made public statements advocating for a “grand coalition” of opposition parties. The WPA’s Co-Leader, Dr. David Hinds, emphasised that they are not looking to rejoin APNU, but rather to form a new coalition where each party retains its identity and voice.

This shift raises critical questions about sincerity and strategic intent. How can these parties genuinely advocate for collaboration when their leadership structures and underlying philosophies remain unchanged?

The desperation is palpable; as they face an increasingly formidable PPP/C, which has consolidated its power since regaining control in 2020, both parties are willing to overlook their previous criticisms in favour of electoral survival.

Their calls for unity seem less about genuine partnership and more about a tactical necessity driven by fear of electoral irrelevance. The contradictions inherent in this new coalition-building effort cannot be ignored.

The same parties that once criticised their partners for lack of consultation and unilateral decision-making are now attempting to create a coalition without addressing the very issues that led to their previous discontent.

The leadership of both the WPA and AFC has not changed significantly since their criticisms were levied; thus, it is unclear how they expect to foster an environment of mutual respect and collaboration when past behaviours suggest otherwise.

Moreover, the philosophical underpinnings that guided these parties during their tenure in coalition government remain intact. They have not fundamentally altered their approaches or ideologies; instead, they seem to be seeking temporary alliances out of sheer necessity rather than a commitment to shared values or goals.
As we look towards the upcoming elections, it is essential to recognise that the calls for coalition from opposition parties are steeped in desperation rather than genuine political evolution.

Their past criticisms highlight significant flaws in their approach, yet they appear willing to repeat those mistakes in pursuit of power.

The upcoming elections will test not only the viability of these coalitions, but also whether Guyanese voters will accept a partnership born more out of necessity than from shared vision or integrity. In this political landscape, desperation may lead to temporary alliances, but whether these coalitions can translate into effective governance remains uncertain.