One of the longest existing characteristics of moral hypocrisy is the Burnham factor in Guyanese politics.
The PNC and the WPA, without exception, meaning every admirer and supporter of Burnham, put Burnham in front of every PPP president. You can describe the demonic power intoxication of Burnham to these people that makes all CARICOM heads, past and present, look like angels and you will get nowhere.
The moral hypocrisy comes into play when they tell you about PPP presidents, past and present. Two books have just been released that describe Burnham’s cruel and incredible power intoxication.
One is Russell Rickford, “A Proxy Africa: Guyana, African Americans and the Radical 1970s.” Please see my review of this book for Sunday, June 21. The other is Moses Bhagwan’s autobiography, “Enter the Political Kingdom: A Guyanese Political Memoir.”
So, we have in Guyana, politicians and political activists that glorify Burnham and are insanely barefaced to criticise past and present PPP presidents whose governance does not contain even one percent of Burnham’s horrible dictatorship. The current manifestation of moral hypocrisy making the rounds in Guyana revolves around Charrandass Persaud and Vincent Alexander.
The world has Google as a priceless research source. Google what the PNC, AFC, WPA and all other opposition aligned personalities have said about Persaud when as part of the ruling party, he voted against his own party in a vote of no-confidence (NCV) in 2018. Without exception, all of these voices have described Persaud’s vote as morally outrageous.
Here is their reasoning. Persaud was part of a party that he had an obligation to. If he didn’t like where his party was going or what it was doing, he had an obligation to discuss his feelings with his party or the morally right thing to do was to resign. But to vote against it while being a sitting MP for that party was morally wrong. There was nothing in the constitution or the laws of Guyana that could have prevented Persaud from voting against his own party.
The Speaker of the House at the time did not rule Persaud’s vote as illegal. Guyana’s highest court, the Caribbean Court of Justice, ruled that the NCV was proper and there was no violation by Persaud. The widespread condemnation of Persaud by the all-opposition parties rested on a single plank – the moral factor.
From December 2018 when the NCV was passed to this day, July 2026, if you ask all PNC, APNU, WPA, AFC, and their associates how they feel about Persaud’s vote, they will say harsh things about him. The window of moral hypocrisy has been openly wide at the moment by the anti-anti-Persaud crusaders over the GECOM Commissioners originally appointed by the PNC.
I recall three years ago, Vincent Alexander was on the Freddie Kissoon Show and he used the moral obligation argument against Persaud. Now Alexander has been persistent in his attitude that opposition GECOM Commissioners cannot be removed because their permanence is guaranteed by the constitution.
It is an absorbing situation. Persaud was in his right to vote the way he saw it but his moral obligation to his party should have been the determining factor in how he voted.
Alexander is not touching the issue of moral responsibility to the main opposition party whose leader is the Opposition Leader. PNC and WPA officials are not raising the question of the moral duty to Guyana by the three GECOM Commissioners from APNU.
Where is the relevance of the moral duty on the part of these three Commissioners? You don’t have to look far to find it. The 2025 election results gave birth to a new opposition in parliament and a new Opposition Leader. This opposition says we want three commissioners of our choice to represent us in GECOM. Is that the morally right thing to say?
What about the moral argument that Alexander and company should allow WIN to select its commissioners because it is the opposition, and the opposition is entitled to have three representatives in GECOM to adumbrate its interests?
So, at the moment, there is a moral caricature. GECOM meets and three commissioners put forward the agenda of WIN. But WIN is saying we do not want you to make recommendations for us. We want people we feel more psychologically comfortable with to be our spokespersons in GECOM.
The moral caricature gets bigger and uglier when GECOM meets because three men in GECOM will be speaking for WIN, and those three men have not had consultation with WIN and do not want such consultation. In this crazy situation where does moral obligation lie? I guess Persaud and Alexander need to have a debate.

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.