POLITICS is at its best when it is a contest of ideas. It is at its worst when it descends into manufactured controversy designed to distract the public from the real issues that affect their daily lives.
The recent criticism directed at President, Dr Mohamed Irfaan Ali over his private farm falls squarely into the latter category.
To hear the opposition tell the story, one would believe that Guyanese have uncovered some hidden secret. The truth is far less sensational.
President Ali’s interest in agriculture is neither new nor surprising. Throughout his public life, he has consistently promoted agriculture as a pillar of Guyana’s economic diversification, food security, and regional leadership. His engagement with farmers, agricultural projects, and rural communities has been visible for years.
A private farm owned by a President who has repeatedly championed agriculture should not be treated as evidence of wrongdoing simply because political opponents decide it is convenient to make it so.
The People’s Progressive Party/Civic has long placed agriculture at the centre of national development.
Since returning to office in 2020, the government has allocated billions of dollars towards drainage and irrigation, farm-to-market roads, support for rice, livestock, aquaculture, corn and soya production, and incentives for farmers across Guyana. Those investments are reflected in successive national budgets and in projects across the country’s agricultural regions.
These are not campaign slogans. They are public policies backed by public expenditure.
The real question, therefore, is why a farm has suddenly become the centrepiece of opposition politics.
Instead of debating agricultural productivity, food security, export opportunities, or improving farmers’ incomes, the opposition has chosen to pursue insinuation over substance. It is easier to manufacture headlines than to produce credible policy alternatives.
The President has repeatedly subjected himself and his administration to public scrutiny through parliamentary oversight, budget debates, procurement processes, and constitutional institutions.
Transparency should remain a continuing obligation of every public office holder, and where legitimate questions arise, they should be answered with facts rather than political theatre.
That same standard should apply to everyone seeking public office.
Azruddin Mohamed has become a prominent political figure while also being associated with significant legal and regulatory matters that have received international attention.
The United States government-imposed sanctions on Mr. Mohamed, his father, and businesses linked to the family in 2024. Those sanctions and related legal proceedings are matters of public record. Mohamed has denied wrongdoing, and various legal proceedings remain ongoing. Those matters should be resolved through the appropriate legal processes, not through trial by politics.
Likewise, public discussion surrounding statements made by members of the Mohamed family towards the President deserves careful scrutiny, where those statements are documented and reported. Political disagreements should never descend into intimidation, personal attacks, or rhetoric that undermines democratic discourse.
Guyana benefits when disagreements are settled through debate, elections, and the rule of law, not through escalation.
What is troubling is the eagerness of sections of the opposition to seize upon every allegation, rumour, or social media controversy involving the government, while remaining comparatively silent on difficult questions concerning their own allies. Accountability cannot be selective. If transparency is demanded of the government, then transparency should also be expected of those who seek to replace it.
The country’s development agenda is extensive. Guyana continues to invest in roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, housing, energy, agriculture, and economic diversification. Citizens are entitled to debate whether these programmes are effective, whether they deliver value for money, and how they can be improved. Those are meaningful political discussions.
Turning a President’s farm into a national scandal without credible evidence of misconduct is not.
The Guyanese people are capable of distinguishing between legitimate scrutiny and manufactured controversy. They understand that politics often becomes louder as elections approach. They also understand the difference between evidence and speculation.
The opposition has every right to question the government. That is an essential feature of democracy. But those questions should be grounded in verifiable facts, not assumptions designed to create suspicion.
Similarly, the government should continue to embrace transparency, respond to legitimate public concerns, and demonstrate that its policies are producing tangible benefits for ordinary Guyanese. Confidence in public institutions grows when accountability is consistent, regardless of political affiliation.
As this debate continues, there are several questions that deserve thoughtful answers from Mohamed and the opposition:
1. Given the ongoing public attention surrounding international sanctions and legal proceedings involving you, how do you intend to reassure Guyanese that you meet the standards of transparency and accountability expected of national leaders?
2. What specific policies would you implement to strengthen Guyana’s agricultural sector beyond criticising the government’s approach?
3. If you argue that transparency should apply to everyone in public life, what additional disclosures or accountability measures would you support for all political leaders, including yourself?
Guyana deserves a political culture focused on competing visions for development rather than perpetual controversy. Agriculture remains too important to become another casualty of partisan politics. The country’s farmers need investment, infrastructure, technology, markets, and leadership, not distractions.
The measure of leadership should ultimately be found not in political spectacle but in results. On that score, Guyanese will judge every political leader, government and opposition alike by the evidence before them.
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.