DR. BHARRAT Jagdeo’s sharp critique of the opposition’s credibility points to the important question for Guyanese voters: who can be trusted to lead this nation toward lasting prosperity and stability?
His claim that no citizen who has closely examined the APNU+AFC slate would risk their future by voting for them reflects not just political talk, but a tough reality based on historical facts and measurable achievements.
The opposition’s performance from 2015 to 2020 highlights a history of broken promises and poor governance. Their commitment to a Commission of Inquiry into extra-judicial killings, a promise carried over from their 2015 campaign, shows their trend of making empty promises.
There were reports of the coalition’s leadership admitting that such an inquiry was impossible due to a lack of evidence and witnesses, revealing their promises as mere political stunts aimed at winning votes without producing real results. Even worse was their systematic dismantling of Guyana’s economic foundation.
They callously closed four sugar estates — Wales, Enmore, Rose Hall, and Skeldon — leaving over 7,000 workers jobless and devastating entire communities. This decision, made against the advice of their own Commission of Inquiry, showed a government more focused on revenge than on managing the economy.
Research from the International Labour Organisation documented severe social consequences, including more incidents of suicide, alcoholism, and crime in the affected areas. The difference with the current PPP/C administration’s successes is striking. While the APNU+AFC coalition distributed just 7,089 house lots over five years, the PPP/C government has surpassed its ambitious goal of 50,000 house lots in under five years, investing over $244 billion in housing.
This remarkable change has helped thousands of families. Such things, in Dr. Jagdeo’s view, would not be achievable under the opposition’s “neophytes.” They would be unable to manage complex governance tasks rings true when looking at their proposed policies.
Opposition economic advisors promise salary increases, cash grants, and subsidies that would drain Guyana’s Natural Resource Fund within a year. Such fiscally reckless promises show either a lack of basic economic understanding or a deliberate attempt to mislead voters.
The opposition’s internal conflicts further highlight their unpreparedness to govern. The public breakdown of APNU+AFC coalition discussions with leaders openly arguing about presidential candidates and describing their own agreements as “on life support,” highlighted too that they are more concentrated on power struggles than on serving the public.
Guyana stands at a pivotal moment, with oil revenues offering unmatched chances for national growth. The PPP/C government has proven its ability to turn these opportunities into real benefits for citizens through significant investments in infrastructure, job creation, education improvements, and poverty reduction programmes. In sharp contrast, the opposition offers only recycled promises and unrealistic objectives.
The choice for Guyanese voters is clear: continue to build on a record of real achievement and capable leadership, or risk the country’s future with the same failed politicians who caused hardship and stagnation the last time they were in power.
As Dr. Jagdeo rightly pointed out, no sensible citizen would gamble Guyana’s promising future on such unreliable leadership.