President Irfaan Ali is right – the EU Observers got it very wrong

This column challenges the EU to name one governing political party anywhere in the world that does not boast of its achievements in Government and that does not seize every opportunity, particularly at election time, to do so. Highlighting completed big projects, particularly transformative projects, during election time is part of the political campaign of every governing political party in the world. It is part and parcel of political campaigning in Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia and Africa. Talking about and demonstrating promises made and kept is not an unfair advantage of incumbency. Prohibiting a governing political party from taking credit for its achievements is like forcing a batsman to play one-handed against the best bowlers in the world.
The governing PPP and the incumbent President Irfaan Ali utilised the messaging of “promises made, promises kept” as a springboard for the Elections 2025 campaign. They promised new hospitals in the Elections 2020 campaign; they commissioned six of these hospitals in the months before Elections 2025. Why commission it then and not, say, in 2024? The commissioning was done when the contractors were ready to hand over. The transformative, single largest investment ever – the Demerara River Bridge – was not commissioned before Elections 2025 because it was not handed over to the Government before Elections 2025. The Heroes’ Highway was commissioned in 2024 because it was finished in 2024. It is the advantage of incumbency that every political party and every political leader has used in every single country in the world. We repeat our challenge to the EU observer team – tell us that this is not true.
In every democracy in the world, particularly in the age of social media, each political party will have an advantage in certain sections of the media. In America, Fox News was and remains unapologetic in giving advantage to the Republican Party. MSNBC similarly gives an advantage to the Democrats. In Guyana, it is no different. Some parts of the media give an advantage to the PPP, and others give the advantage to the opposition. While the state media focused on the Government’s achievements, there were significant parts of the media – printed, TV, radio and social media – that were brutal in painting the Government in a bad light. The EU chose to ignore this reality.
Did somebody forget to tell the EU observers that reporters from state media or media perceived to be friendly to the PPP and President Irfaan Ali were prevented by the opposition itself when they tried to provide coverage for the opposition? Azruddin Mohamed did not want to talk to the media perceived to be friendly to the PPP. Aubrey Norton aggressively prevented those reporters from getting close to him.
The PPP is more than 75 years old. It has always depended on its supporters. From the old days when it passed around a hat at public meetings to fund its operation and its election campaign to today when it holds fundraisers where supporters pay to eat or be entertained, the PPP has always depended on its supporters to fund election campaigns. That other political parties always depend on only a few donors is not the fault of the PPP and its supporters. Did big donors support the PPP? Of course, there are always those who come at election time. But the PPP throughout its history has always mostly depended on its supporters across the country.  It is why when they went into Elections 2020 as an opposition force, they could have matched the then incumbent PNC-led APNU/AFC.
The EU election observers were unambiguous, like other observer missions, that the elections were free and fair and met international standards. They felt compelled, however, to find something to balance their conclusion that the elections were free and fair. It appears that they wanted to give the losing political parties something as consolation.
President Irfaan Ali took serious exception to aspects of the published report from the EU election observer team that was present in Guyana during the run-up and the conduct of the elections on September 1, 2025. While the EU observer mission was explicit and unambiguous that the elections were conducted professionally and were free and fair, the mission decided to comment on other matters. President Ali did not object to the mission’s desire to comment on other matters. But he took them to task for not presenting the whole picture.
Guyana’s General and Regional Elections were held on September 1, 2025. All of the accredited observer missions concluded that the elections conducted on September 1, 2025, in Guyana were free and fair, conducted professionally and adhering to all international standards. The UNDP summarised the conclusion best and concluded that the elections met all conditions set out in international norms to be deemed without any shadow of a doubt as free and fair. In fact, all observer missions from CARICOM, the OAS, the EU, the UNDP itself, the Commonwealth, the Carter Center and other local and international observers concluded the same. GECOM must be commended for conducting smooth elections in all aspects. Election Day was smooth, with very little for anyone to complain about.
The management of the vote counting and relaying the results to the public was perhaps the best ever. The public was accessing information almost as rapidly as GECOM itself. As soon as SOPs were signed off by presiding officers and election day officials at the polling stations, they were made available on the GECOM website. This was completely different from 2020 when GECOM staff in collaboration with certain political parties attempted to change the results as were reported in SOPs. Bravo, GECOM.