Dear Editor,
Over the past few weeks, there has been an upsurge in youth involvement in socio-political discourse—an essential development which cannot be underscored enough. The UN has emphasized young people as being integral to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), yet often lack adequate platforms to raise concerns. Additionally, UNESCO’s 2023 report on youth activism highlighted youth-centric protests as pivotal in advocating for democracy, social justice and climate action.
We must commend the young people who have forayed into the public discourse, irrespective of whether their constructive criticism has been levied at the Government or Opposition, for such participation is reflective of vibrant democracy. However, a deeply concerning trend has recently emerged.
Over the past few weeks, a cascade of venomous attacks has been aimed at these young commentators, this author being no exception. These attacks, particularly void of reasoned rebuttal, instead descending into ad-hominems must be chronologized for posterity.
Upon publishing my article criticizing Presidential aspirant Mr. Nigel Hughes for exploiting Crime Wave era trauma, for political theater, a slew of abusive responses emerged, primarily from local and overseas Opposition elements, with some remarks bordering on racial epithets.
Subsequently, my friend, Mr. Shaquawn Gill shared his perspective in the press, asking Mr. Hughes to provide evidence to substantiate his inflammatory claims. Shaquawn explicitly stated that he wished not to “impute any improper motives of Hughes or anyone else”. However we stated that “the reality is simple – our young people deserve the truth”. In response, he was bombarded with a tidal wave of deeply racist and vitriolic abuse, once again emanating from known Opposition elements.
Furthermore, young economist, Mr. Matthew Gaul, wrote a sharp critique of the education sector on his personal Facebook page. His analysis was praised by several opposition figures and supporters. Just days after publishing this critique, he posted another essay titled “The Curious Case of Nigel Hughes and His Bid for the Presidency.” The essay highlighted Hughes’ “Manu Ginóbili-esque skills of eurostepping” whenever pressed on policy specifics. Gaul dismissed Hughes’ vague political rhetoric, stating, “This is not vision; it is evasion.” describing his candidacy as “profoundly jarring,” citing his numerous documented conflicts of interest. Must I describe the vile, racist abuse he endured in the online space? Need I specify from whom and where such remarks originated?
There exists no doubt in my mind that these attacks were coordinated by the Opposition, intended to smear and vilify dissenting young voices into silence. This is damning. Youth civic participation is vital for renewal of the lifeblood of any healthy democracy.
As unfortunate as these attacks are, they are symptoms of a greater malaise from within the Opposition—one that threatens our democracy but also future generations. The Opposition’s prejudice against youth discourse is a highly documented, institutional problem. A 2015 News Source article featured President Granger defending a “greying” Cabinet, described by the publication, over concerns the “average age” of the Cabinet “appears to be 55-years-old” , with the then voting population comprising 60% youth. This apparent gerontocracy was pure foreshadowing.
In 2021, following the aftermath of the 2020 Elections Saga, Thandi McAllister, one of their most prominent young leaders, resigned. In her statement, she concluded that “the present direction of the leadership is ill-suited to the fulfillment of the aspirations of young people in Guyana”. McAllister had served the party for 25 years and was the PNC/R Region 3 Chair at the time. She was subsequently replaced by pensioner Perry Birbal before their 2021 Congress. McAllister labeled her resignation as “agonizing” , once poised to be the next generation of the PNC/R.
Subsequently, Brian Smith, another rising youth leader within the PNC/R , walked. Smith cited the “Fights of older people” and added: “I think there is need for a new direction and I think young people are at that level of consciousness”. Further, Smith advocated for the party to “allow us to tell you what we want for the future…” and “I don’t believe there is space for us to do that in this construct and as such, I encourage all young people to chart your own course”. Smith claimed that “young people have been the grass for some time and they suffered” within his former party, positing that ““… you look left, you look right everybody is a pensioner”.
Fast forward to 2024: Following a handshake with President Ali at an outreach in Linden, young MP Jermaine Figueira was abruptly stripped of his portfolio as Shadow Minister for Culture, Youth & Sport. Figueira, a prominent youth leader who also served as the Party Chair for Region 10 and Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, condemned the decision, stating, “This unmeritorious and unwise decision does not augur well for a party that claims to be democratic and supportive of young people.”
Figueira’s words paint a daunting picture of the current state of our Opposition: an arena where young, bright voices are sidelined upon mere notion of dissent. This deep-rooted problem needs to be rectified swiftly if it harbours any serious attempt to escape total electoral wilderness. This was further underscored by the negative reviews, permeating in the public domain, of the Opposition’s 2025 Budget Debate performance. The Opposition’s disjointed and contradictory presentations were ridiculed to the extent that many were humorously accused of being drafted by ChatGPT.
Compounding this is the lack of a visible or dynamic YSM and YFC—save for the noble Kibwe Copeland—rendering the Opposition functionally impotent. One cannot imagine the looming leadership vacuum brewing from the stymying of rising stars. A sterile Opposition is no Opposition. This is not conducive to the health of a Democracy.
To the Opposition, I say this: Stop attacking young voices. Your glaring vulnerability to discourse will not only define your marked ineptitude but also determine your political shelf life.
To the young people, I say this: Keep driving the conversation forward. Do not waver. The time has come to build a new political culture—focusing on the dialogue of Guyana’s tomorrow. Now is the time. Let us begin.
Yours faithfully,
Nikhil Sankar
