A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) may have launched its recent campaign with much excitement among its members, but underneath the spectacle, there is a political movement facing an identity crisis and a serious lack of energy.

As Nomination Day approaches on July 14, the sight of APNU and the Alliance For Change (AFC) setting up camp outside the iconic Umana Yana reveals more about their struggle to stay relevant in Guyana’s changing political scene than their readiness for the elections.

The camping strategy outside Umana Yana, meant to secure good positioning for nomination submissions, reveals a deeper truth about the opposition’s focus.

While APNU insists they are “putting people first”, the reality is that both APNU and AFC are more concerned with getting ahead of each other than presenting a united front against any other party.

Critics point out that this positioning is more about internal competition between two fractured entities than about defeating other parties.

The most striking evidence of APNU’s organisational decline is its unashamed recruiting of AFC members. The switch of Juretha Fernandes, Sherod Duncan, and Deonarine Ramsaroop to serve on APNU’s candidate list reflects a significant admission of failure.

After months of unproductive talks with the AFC, APNU resorted to picking individual members when those discussions fell apart.

The choice of Fernandes as APNU’s Prime Ministerial candidate is especially telling. A woman that was part of a party that said Aubrey is not a likeable candidate for president is now his running mate.

This contradiction highlights the opportunistic nature of APNU’s recruiting, and the lack of any clear political vision. The AFC’s response, formally expelling these defectors, shows the loss of trust between the two parties.

When AFC Leader Nigel Hughes says that any remaining coalition chances are “off the table”, it confirms what many have suspected: APNU’s political approach is more about transactions than principles.

The party’s readiness to take members from a potential coalition partner shows leadership more interested in gathering political assets than in creating lasting alliances.

Norton’s dismissive stance on these defections, calling the AFC’s reaction “petty”, shows a leader who does not understand the weight of his party’s actions.

His statement that “the AFC has gone to at least ten of our members” suggests a retaliatory mindset that trivialises coalition politics. This is not the behaviour of a party ready to govern; it reflects a political entity in serious decline.

The ongoing defections from both opposition parties tell a more concerning story. From MP Geeta Chandan-Edmond to Regional Chairman Daniel Seeram, key figures are leaving APNU, not for political convenience but because of significant disagreements with Norton’s leadership style.

When your own campaign manager from the 2020 elections backs your opponent, it indicates a credibility crisis that camping strategies or poached candidates cannot fix.

As APNU and AFC stay outside Umana Yana, they hold physical space, while their political relevance fades. The irony is clear: Two parties that can’t form a coalition must compete to secure enough nominations and avoid the probable duplication of names, highlighting their shared fall into irrelevance.

The tragedy of APNU’s situation is that it symbolises the lost potential of opposition politics in Guyana. Instead of offering a credible alternative to the governing party, APNU has become a group of ambitious individuals more focused on securing positions than on promoting policies.

Their camping outside the Umana Yana does not show commitment to the democratic process; rather, it represents a party that has lost its way, and seeks to occupy space without any purpose.