RECENTLY, a video of a child being grabbed and seemingly forced to pose for a photo with a gift he received from the Mohameds appeared on social media. The child’s facial expression was one of discomfort, bewilderment and confusion. Also, another video appeared online with Parliamentarian Azruddin Mohamed sharing food to people in Albouystown on Christmas morning. They had no gloves, aprons, hairnets or a food handler’s certificate. They were basically having the people’s photos and videos taken in exchange for a plate of food, and to help Mohamed’s political campaign.
There are several other times, the Mohameds went to depressed, poor and needy communities not with the intention of highlighting the plight of the people but to assist with their political campaign and publicity.
Then, there is the APNU Parliamentarian Coretta McDonald, who is allegedly saying that the current government engages in discrimination and favouritism in its treatment of poor people. She said that there is allegedly one treatment of the poor and Afro-Guyanese, and another for Indians and supporters of the government, which sees this group benefiting from the doling out of multi-million-dollar contracts, small business loans, financial assistance and such like.
And finally, several other opposition parliamentarians seem to be talking about Guyana’s poverty rate and level, and weaponising this against the government at every forum on and off social media. Firstly, there is nothing wrong with taking a group photo and video with children, but the Mohameds must have permission from the adults if it will be used on social media and mass media, and on a political platform.
Parents must do more to protect their children from those politicians who are obsessed with the political optics and are seeking to create a moment on social media. They are not concerned about the joy of the children receiving the gifts as much as looking like they are helping the poor and needy. The fact that a child is seemingly uncomfortable with the picture should give the politician pause. No one’s child should be treated like that.
Similarly, the Mohameds should know that the event in Albouystown would come in for a number of criticisms. It felt like Mohamed was competing with the president. It felt like he was copying the president and imitating his One Guyana cookout. But if that is the case, Mohamed should ensure he has protective gear and the relevant certificates for cooking for large crowds.
It was an attempt to seem humble and concerned about the poorer and unfortunate classes of people. Why were photographers and videographers getting people to eat food and collect food from Mohamed? These selective images are now out there for the public to see. They are in bad taste and will forever paint a bad image, even if it is misinterpreted. Optics matters. They should not paint the people of Albouystown in such a horrible light for the world to see at the expense of gaining publicity for the Mohameds or any other starved politician.
If it’s a genuine initiative, it should not be used as political propaganda or even posted by the Mohameds. The independent media should have been invited if WIN was serious about coverage. Instead of coming up with a unique and innovative way of spending time with the poor and unfortunate classes of people at Christmas, the Mohameds saw it fit to flatter the president by imitation of his event.
Secondly, McDonald’s comments made on social media confirm that she is seeking to be racist, bitter and petty. Like the APNU, she is not being objective or critical in her analysis of what she is seeing happening in Guyana, and that is perfectly fine. She could definitely live in the land of fairytale and pull the wool over the eyes of a few, but the reality of economic empowerment is stark and clear as day.
McDonald failed to state that the government, since 2020, has given billions of dollars in small business loans without making race, political preference or any other criteria that could lead to discrimination, a requirement. In fact, more PNC and APNU supporters have accessed grants and loans from the Small Business Bureau (SBB) since 2020 compared to the previous government. SBB has successfully disbursed nearly $900 million through its grants and loan guarantee initiatives in 2023 to support and expand aspiring enterprises. The government distributed 100 small business loans and issued 1,362 grants across the country in 2024 and almost doubled the amount in 2025.
McDonald’s analysis is made up of lies and hysterical information. Anyone could see that there are more Afro-Guyanese people and businesses bidding for contracts and being awarded contracts than during the years of Granger’s presidency. The government has taken measures to diversify the pool of contractors and level the playing field where possible.
McDonald is seeking to practice jumbie economics and sadly cannot grasp the complex realities of politics, even if she tried. There is no discrimination or favouritism within the system, and she should be fighting for more opportunities to improve the lives of Guyanese poor people. It is sad how people like McDonald pass off their ignorance as facts.
Thirdly, the opposition parties that continue to use the World Bank’s/IDB’s estimation of poverty in Guyana as a political tool against the government are doing Guyana a disservice. Guyana deserves better from its leaders and parliamentarians. Guyana’s poverty rate for 2025 is highly contested, with official data lagging or instances of updated data simply not being used.
Recent 2025 reports suggest significant drops due to oil wealth and government programmes, with some estimates pointing to below 20 per cent but this will not stop the opposition from stating that poverty is climbing by significant numbers. The truth is, social policies, education grants, and carbon credit funds have been an economic game changer as far as poverty is concerned.
So, the opposition parties, APNU and WIN, use ‘poor people’ for political optics, focusing on actions or statements that create a public perception of concern about poverty, often without implementing substantial structural changes or genuine policy solutions. WIN and APNU appear to focus heavily on appearances and public image for political gain. They hardly focus on substantial actions or solutions which escape their brains. These politicians engage in photo opportunities, poverty simulations, or public visits to impoverished areas to appear relatable and caring, even if they lack actual personal experience of poverty. Mohamed is a classic example of a life that was built on backs of hardworking people who were poor and needy. He cannot relate to the things he is being told.
Also, the opposition’s political rhetoric often amplifies cultural stereotypes that define an “us” versus “them,” sometimes painting benefit claimants as “scroungers” to appeal to other voter bases. This can reinforce negative narratives and reduce public support for welfare programs. They have weaponised poverty, using it to keep people dependent and easier to manipulate, ensuring a reliable voter base that struggles to demand genuine accountability.
APNU and WIN appear to be big on rhetoric and minuscule on solutions that lead to the implementation of genuine, long-term poverty reduction strategies—such as expanding the welfare state, ensuring fair wages, or protecting social policies—which means the underlying issues persist. Ultimately, the use of poverty for political optics prioritises the short-term goal of winning elections and maintaining power over the long-term goal of improving the lives of citizens in need.
Finally, change and policies are vital to improving people’s lives, not handouts. Setting the public image to reflect the narrative that a political party is helping the poor and needy Guyanese will not address the issue. If the WIN and APNU continue talking about poverty without being realistic and advising their supporters to access the available solutions that the government has that could lead to poverty alleviation, they are part of the problem, not the solution.
Competition for political influence often prevents ideals from becoming realities. This leaves people suffering through destitution every day. Consequently, actions may not help those who need them or fail to consider those who will be affected. If people are forced to change, this can lead to conflict as people may be unable to meet their needs.
Alliances between external organisations and political factions can potentially cause change, but not in the way that APNU and WIN are going about the issues. Instead of aiming to solve them separately, APNU and WIN can opt to work together with the government, and they can help ease poverty and the issues it causes. They should not use the circumstances of a community that is poor or needy and weaponise it against the government, which has done a phenomenal job in the reduction of poverty. President Dr Mohamed Irfaan Ali is expected to explore more poverty reduction strategies and delve into the core policy framework that will further reduce the prevalence of poverty.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.