THE victory of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) in Guyana’s 2025 election reveals a more complex story than just the vote numbers.
The PPP/C’s win in Region Four marks the first time this traditionally APNU stronghold has shifted to the ruling party.

This change, along with the rapid rise of the WIN party as the parliamentary opposition, indicates not only a political shift but also a deeper examination of belonging in modern Guyana.
The numbers illustrate a significant change. The PPP/C received 87,536 votes in Region Four, while APNU secured 46,956. Meanwhile, WIN attracted 41,607 votes in the same area.
APNU’s vote count fell by more than 68,000 in their usual stronghold, with majority of those voters switching to WIN. This shift goes beyond simple ethnic loyalties, suggesting that Guyanese voters increasingly make decisions based on governance results rather than inherited political ties.

Dr. Walter Persaud’s reference of E.P. Thompson’s distinction between rising living standards and lived experiences, in a letter to the editor, provides an important perspective for understanding this electoral shift.

The PPP/C government has notably improved infrastructure, expanded housing, and overseen remarkable economic growth fuelled by oil revenues.
However, APNU’s claims that their supporters feel marginalised, despite these material benefits, underscore Thompson’s main idea: economic progress cannot ensure democratic legitimacy if citizens do not feel valued in the national project.

While the ethnic aspect is significant, it requires careful analysis. APNU has traditionally drawn its support from Afro-Guyanese groups, while both the PPP/C and WIN are led by Indo-Guyanese figures.

The movement of former APNU supporters to these parties, including notable individuals like James Bond and Daniel Seeram who publicly backed the PPP/C, shows that ethnic loyalty is not automatic or unchangeable.

The harsh reactions from some within APNU, calling defectors “cochores” and worse, illustrate the party’s challenge in recognising that political loyalty can be earned, not simply accepted.
The emergence of the WIN party is perhaps the most intriguing development. Led by the controversial Azruddin Mohamed, WIN gained grassroots support by various means.
Despite Mohamed facing U.S. sanctions for alleged corruption, WIN secured significant votes from Afro-Guyanese and Indigenous communities, even winning Region 10. This success indicates that voters prioritised promises of inclusion and opportunities over concerns about Mohamed’s legal issues, reflecting their deep frustration with current political options.
The real risk lies in how political leaders respond to this electoral upheaval. APNU’s calls for recounts and allegations of irregularities, while not illegal, could foster dangerous narratives of democratic illegitimacy.

Similarly, WIN’s statements that the elections were “neither free nor fair,” despite their electoral success, could damage confidence in Guyana’s democratic institutions. This kind of talk, especially when amplified by voices from the diaspora, could easily escalate into the violent unrest that has troubled Guyana’s past.
Moving forward requires embracing Thompson’s core idea: democracy cannot thrive on economic progress alone. Citizens need to feel that their voices matter, their dignity is recognised, and their futures are interconnected, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds.

The PPP/C’s significant win in Region Four came not from ethnic mobilisation but from effective policy and inclusive messaging, providing a model for how this can be achieved.
It is also crucial to enhance the democratic maturity shown by voters. The fact that traditional ethnic loyalties shifted, allowing former APNU supporters to choose other parties based on their views on governance, signifies a significant evolution in Guyanese political culture. This flexibility should be valued and safeguarded, not viewed as a betrayal.
Guyana is at a pivotal moment. Its oil wealth offers unprecedented resources to address past inequalities and foster inclusive growth. The electorate has demonstrated remarkable insight by making choices that go beyond ethnic divisions.

The key challenge is whether political leaders can meet their citizens’ democratic maturity. They need to create an environment where all Guyanese feel like valued participants in their nation’s remarkable transformation.

Failing to address grievances while prosperity expands could waste both democratic progress and economic potential.
The election results bring hope but hope alone is not enough. Guyana now needs the civic creativity to build a democracy that fulfils its citizens’ aspirations—one where belonging is gained through inclusive governance rather than through ethnic claims.