THE European Union’s praise of Guyana’s 2025 elections as peaceful, well-managed and sound is an important recognition of democratic progress.
However, the report’s mention of the “incumbency advantage” as a criticism highlights a troubling contradiction in today’s electoral discussions. It mixes good governance with electoral misconduct.
Minister Kwame McCoy’s recent response to this thinking deserves attention. It raises a key question about what democracy truly expects from governments during elections.
The idea that good governance is suspicious during election years is not only impractical. It is also undemocratic. When observers warn against the “advantage of incumbency” because a government completes budgeted projects, opens hospitals, or provides promised services, they imply that competence is unethical.
This sets an impossible standard where governments must choose between meeting their obligations and seeming neutral. This isn’t a real choice; it is a demand for paralysis disguised as fairness.
Think about the absurdity of the alternative. Should governments put infrastructural projects on hold because an election is coming? Should newly built hospitals stay closed? Should agricultural subsidies be paused to avoid claims of political manoeuvring?
This is not neutrality but rather it is refusal to act. It treats citizens as secondary to the idea of “balance,” denying communities vital services just because delivering them might remind voters that the government is functioning.
Ironically, this reasoning could undermine the very democratic legitimacy it claims to protect, as voters become frustrated with a government that stops working during its most critical time for accountability.
Democratic governments in established democracies understand this well. European governments campaign on their records because performance matters.
They cut ribbons, launch programmes, and showcase their achievements—not as underhanded tactics, but as clear commitments to their record. The public judges them based on this at the ballot box.
This is real accountability. The electorate votes on the basis of visible results, not on the unrealistic idea that all governments should become invisible during elections.
The point Minister McCoy makes is vital, as schools, roads, hospitals, and social programmes are not “incumbency perks” given to friends.
They are the results of governmental responsibility. To label effective delivery as misconduct is to mix hard work with wrongdoing, professionalism with propaganda. A healthy democracy is not measured by how quietly governments withdraw before elections, but instead by what they provide to their citizens throughout their entire time in office, including during elections.
This is not a call for unfettered state resources used for political purposes. But all concerned should not confuse the need for governments to change their usual operations to meet outside expectations for invisibility.
Good governance is not cheating; it is expected. Elections are not times for governments to apologise for their competence, but they are times for voters to judge it. A true democracy trusts citizens to differentiate between legitimate governance and political manipulation. That trust is the basis for real accountability.