Dear Editor,
I noticed the recent coverage of Transparency International’s latest commentary on Guyana, which reminded me of the serious allegations surrounding the role played by Transparency International in manipulating Brazil’s democratic process.
While the organisation claims to champion anti-corruption and good governance, there is growing evidence that its interventions in several countries have been politically motivated, including in Brazil, where Transparency International has been accused of undermining Brazil’s democratic institutions rather than strengthening them.
One of the most glaring examples is Transparency International’s strong support for Operation Car Wash (Lava Jato), which was initially presented as a corruption probe, but ultimately became a tool for political interference. The operation disproportionately targeted leaders from one political party, particularly former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who was jailed on dubious grounds that Brazil’s Supreme Court later annulled.
Politicisation of the anti-corruption agenda resulted in the 2018 election of Jair Bolsonaro, and Operation Car Wash played a major role in shaping the political environment that led to this.
Moreover, leaked messages from the prosecutors involved in Lava Jato, revealed through The Intercept’s Vaza Jato reports, showed direct collusion between prosecutors and Sérgio Moro, the judge at the time, who privately advised the prosecution on strategy while publicly presenting himself as an impartial arbiter of justice.
The messages exposed political motivations behind the case, including discussions about ensuring Lula’s exclusion from the 2018 elections. This severe breach of judicial ethics demonstrated how the anti-corruption banner was manipulated to serve a political agenda.
Instead of condemning these abuses, Transparency International continued to provide legitimacy to a flawed and biased process. Even after the Supreme Court overturned Lula’s conviction, Transparency International refused to acknowledge its role in the manipulation of Brazil’s democracy.
Transparency International’s support for Operation Car Wash and Sérgio Moro raise questions about its impartiality. The organization awarded Operation Car Wash and Moro its annual anti-corruption prize in 2016, at the height of Lava Jato, despite growing concerns about the operation’s selective targeting.
Moro later joined the Jair Bolsonaro government as Minister of Justice, revealing his true political loyalties. Transparency International, however, remained silent on this clear conflict of interest, demonstrating that its so-called anti-corruption efforts were not applied equally.
This raises an important question: Is Transparency International attempting to do the same thing in Guyana? Recent actions suggest the organisation is increasingly aligning itself with interests that do not necessarily reflect the democratic will of the Guyanese people. Its selective approach to transparency and governance raises concerns about whether its interventions are truly impartial, or are part of a broader effort to influence the country’s political landscape.
As President Ali pointed out in his recent address, globally credible institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the Commonwealth Secretariat have all contradicted the points made by Transparency International. Their assessments of Guyana’s governance and financial management stand in stark contrast to Transparency International’s claims, further calling into question the organisation’s credibility and motives.
It is worth asking: Why does Transparency International consistently target leaders like Lula in Brazil or Ali in Guyana? The common thread is that these leaders derive their strength from deep connections with the working class and grassroots movements. They represent a political orientation that prioritises inclusive economic growth and social development — values that often run counter to the interests of powerful elites.
Transparency International, instead of applying its standards universally, appears to favour leaders aligned with corporate and financial elites while undermining those who prioritise equitable development. This pattern suggests that the organisation is less about true accountability and more about serving the interests of a particular political and economic class.
Guyana has made significant progress in strengthening its democratic institutions and ensuring transparency in governance. However, international organisations like Transparency International must be scrutinised when their actions appear to be less about accountability and more about advancing political agendas. If the organisation is truly committed to fighting corruption, it must apply its standards fairly, without serving as a tool for regime change or external influence.
Brazil has already seen the devastating consequences of such interference. Guyana must remain vigilant to ensure that its democracy is not similarly undermined. The Guyanese people deserve transparency — not just in governance, but also from those who claim to promote it.
Sincerely,
Roger Rogers
