IN the intricate world of politics, where commitments are made with passion and rhetoric tends to rule the day, the record of a political party is a vital gauge for voters.
It is not just a record of the past but a reflection of credibility, competence, and commitment. In Guyana, as in most democracies, determining a party’s record is key to making informed and wise electoral choices.

A party’s record is its tangible achievements and failures. It is quantifiable results—policies implemented, economic growth achieved, and social progress encouraged—upon which it is founded.
The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) has consistently referenced its record of fulfilment of promises, from cultivating economic recovery to encouraging democratic values after decades of political instability under previous administrations.

On the other hand, rhetoric and hype are short-term tools usually used in the interest of votes without subsequent follow-through to support action. The People’s National Congress-Reform (PNC/R) opposition and its coalition partners have been criticised for not holding on to promises made while in office, as well as practising politics of division, which destroy trust.
This is a development of the dangers of rhetoric supplanting results. Politicians across the world have made unrealistic promises that have yet to be realised. Track records serve numerous purposes, among them being accountability. A track record that has been proved serves to hold parties accountable for their actions.

The PPP/C’s record of consistent fulfilment of development objectives—despite past threats such as outside interference and racial discord—proves its dedication to national advancement. An effective party that has delivered on its past commitments can be more reliably entrusted with further mandates. Unrepeated incompetence or corruption sleaze, meanwhile, tarnish a party’s image, such as the AFC’s and PNC/R’s failure to reinvent themselves in light of allegations of mismanagement.

A positive track record allows citizens to judge the effectiveness of policies. For instance, during the PPP/C’s governance, Guyana transitioned from stagnation to becoming one of the world’s fastest-growing economies owing to the prudent management of its oil resources. Citizens who know about a party’s history can make evidence-based decisions and not decisions based on persuasion or emotion.

Rhetoric is emotional but superficial in action. Campaign speeches with lofty ideals but no feasible solutions deceive the voters and undermine democracy. Examples throughout history are legion—politicians promising tax cuts or social change, but with no feasible plans have left nations with economic crises or dashed expectations.

Also, reliance on rhetoric encourages polarisation and reduces legislative effectiveness. Evidence has shown that evidence-based rhetoric results in better governance, while intuition-based rhetoric exacerbates divisions. The PNC/R’s inability to provide lucid policies or engage constructively with the PPP/C illustrates how hollow rhetoric produces political stagnation.
As another Guyanese election cycle approaches, citizens will have to hold track records above campaign rhetoric. Voters must subject a party’s record of fulfilling promises, ability for open and inclusive governance and responsiveness to critically pressing concerns such as economic inequality and social cohesion to critical examination.

Guyanese citizens must go past general promises and demand responsibility from their leaders—since democracy is at its best when citizens make informed, rather than illusion-based, decisions