The Opposition’s response to Budget 2026 has shown a lack of substance regarding policy. Instead of serious economic understanding and governance, there is a troubling void.
Minister within the Office of the Prime Minister, Kwame McCoy’s comments are not just political talk; they highlight a reality.
Both APNU and the new We Invest in Nationhood party have not engaged with the details of the $1.558 trillion fiscal plan. This plan aims to boost growth, protect the vulnerable, and increase productive capacity in a rapidly growing economy.
What Guyana saw was not a thorough critique of the policy but a theatrical protest disguised as parliamentary discussion. Instead of examining macroeconomic stability, sectoral investment priorities, or long-term development plans, Opposition MPs resorted to slogans and catchy phrases.
This is particularly harmful because serious budget review requires technical skills. Understanding fiscal deficits, multiplier effects, debt sustainability, and capital formation is essential. A national budget is a policy tool based on data and forecasts, not a campaign flyer meant for street corners.
The weakness of the Opposition’s stance becomes clear when we look at their manifesto promises. During the 2025 elections, both APNU and WIN promised much larger cash transfers, pension increases, and tax threshold changes.
All of these would need a significantly larger national budget, deeper borrowing, and higher fiscal deficits than what the government proposed. Yet, these parties provided no realistic costing or financing plans when asked to clarify their numbers.
APNU promised $400,000 monthly tax thresholds and a 35 per cent increase in public sector wages. WIN proposed 50 per cent salary increases and doubled pensions. Independent analysis indicated that these commitments could drain the Natural Resource Fund within a year and lead to unsustainable deficits.
The irony is striking. Parties that cannot calculate their own proposals now criticize a government budget that expects 16.2 per cent overall growth and 10.8 per cent growth in non-oil sectors. This budget maintains macroeconomic stability with a projected inflation rate of 2.8 per cent.
It also directs oil revenues toward infrastructure, education, healthcare, and social support without increasing taxes. This isn’t an economic debate; it’s political noise from those who mistake performance for policymaking.
Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Gail Teixeira’s dismissal of WIN parliamentarian Gobin Harbajan’s claim about not having enough time to prepare brings the Opposition’s lack of readiness to light.
The argument that six days was too little ignores parliamentary traditions. Budget preparation in Guyana has been structured this way for many years across different sessions. Moreover, Opposition parties had months, since the manifesto period, to form policy positions on national development priorities.
The real issue is not the time frame but the capacity. Many Opposition MPs have limited legislative experience and weak institutional memory.
Guyana cannot afford leaders who confuse loud statements with thoughtful critique and ignorance with bravery. Budget 2026 represents a 307 per cent increase since 2021, turning oil wealth into real investments.
This includes housing ($159 billion), education ($183.6 billion), healthcare ($161.1 billion), and infrastructure ($196 billion), while enhancing social support to $78.3 billion. This requires informed engagement, including analysing sector allocations, examining capital versus recurrent spending, scrutinising debt management strategies, and developing evidence-based alternatives.
Instead, the Opposition made vague accusations of “broken promises” and “kickbacks” without providing evidence or realistic alternatives.
This reflects not only inexperience but also a lack of seriousness about governance. Guyana’s economic growth needs mature political engagement based on data, fiscal responsibility, and depth in policy.
The Opposition’s actions indicate they are fundamentally unprepared to offer the thorough oversight that democracy deserves, preferring to retreat into the comfortable but unproductive realm of political theater.