WITH Guyana preparing for its September 1, 2025 general election, citizens are faced with a juncture that necessitates unprecedented scrutiny of candidates contesting the nation’s top seat.

The emergence of controversial candidates, even one listed under sanctions by a foreign government, underlines the need for voters to sift through promises, and reflect on the character, integrity, and international standing of presidential aspirants.

Guyana’s democracy has been tested and tried previously, most notably during the tumultuous 2020 elections when the APNU+AFC was said to have attempted to “subvert the will of Guyanese” for a painful five months, through “threats, intimidation, interruption of recount, and litigation”.

The electoral process finally withstood this assault, having demonstrated itself robust, but the experience is a stark reminder that democracy requires vigilance from its citizens.

Citizens must also equally recognise their responsibility to scrutinise candidates’ background, business endeavours, and international reputation prior to voting.

That businessman Azruddin Mohamed has entered the ring as a presidential candidate while facing US Treasury sanctions should be a reason for sober reflection on the standard we hold our politicians to.

The ramifications of an election for a sanctioned president internationally cannot be overthought.

The US Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control blacklisted Mohamed and his cohorts in June 2024 for alleged participation in “public corruption”, including allegations that he “left out 10,000 kilograms of gold on import and export declarations”, possibly referring to evading “around $50 million in duty taxes”.

These are not technicalities; they are serious charges of undermining State revenue and corrupt conduct.

A sanctioned president would face immediate diplomatic and economic restraint. American firms would be barred from dealing with the administration, potentially isolating Guyana from vital international partnerships and sources of investment.

Given Guyana’s young oil-producing economy and need for foreign capital and technical expertise, such isolation would prove economically disastrous.

Moral legitimacy of the presidency would also be lost at inception.

How can a leader fight corruption and ensure good governance when he is being penalised for allegedly corrupt conduct? The paradox is stark and menacing to the democratic ethos.

The 2020 elections demonstrated that Guyana’s “electoral machinery as administered by the Guyana Elections Commission is most excellent”.

Excellent electoral machinery is, however, of little use if voters are unable to exercise sound judgement.

The new law providing “stronger and harsher punishments for any repeat effort to manipulate an election” addresses procedural integrity but cannot replace voter judgment.

Democracy functions when citizens anticipate excellence, integrity, and responsibility from leadership.

The elections ahead offer a chance to prove that Guyana’s democracy has evolved beyond just participation to espouse responsible citizenship with a focus on national interest in preference to personality or party affiliation.

The option is the people’s, but the option must be an informed, considered, and reflective one with an awareness of its long-term implications.