Jeffrey Blasts PPP Over Constitutional Reform Failures

Former People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) minister Dr Henry Jeffrey has delivered a stinging assessment of the governing party’s record on constitutional reform, arguing that its decades-long resistance to meaningful change has entrenched executive dominance, weakened democratic accountability and perpetuated ethnic divisions in Guyana.

In an October 25, 2026 opinion piece titled “The PPP’s Foolhardiness And Tomorrow,” Jeffrey questioned the sincerity of PPP General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo’s recent call for greater political cooperation between the PPP and the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), suggesting that the party’s newfound enthusiasm may have more to do with political expediency than a genuine commitment to inclusive governance.

Jagdeo recently argued that the two major political parties would eventually have to work together, warning that failure to adapt could threaten their political futures.

Jeffrey, however, contended that the PPP has historically been the principal obstacle to the constitutional changes necessary to address Guyana’s political and ethnic divisions.

“The greatest obstacle to the introduction of the necessary constitutional reforms in Guyana has been the PPP.”

While holding the PPP primarily responsible, Jeffrey also acknowledged that the PNCR failed to implement meaningful reforms when it had the opportunity.

He recalled the experience of former PNCR leader Robert Corbin, whose attempts at cooperation with the PPP produced little progress. Citing Corbin’s August 17, 2003 address to the nation, Jeffrey highlighted the former opposition leader’s frustration:

“Regrettably, the time and energy spent to obtain the results achieved so far suggest that deliberate efforts are being made to retard implementation.”

Jeffrey argued that Guyana has repeatedly ignored international warnings that its winner-takes-all governance system is inappropriate for a deeply divided society.

He recalled former US President Jimmy Carter’s 2004 assessment that the PPP was unwilling to embrace the necessary constitutional changes. He also cited a 2021 USAID Democracy, Human Rights and Governance assessment, which warned:

“Guyana will continue to face unstable socio-cultural and governance conditions until ethnic inclusion in the decision-making process is institutionalized.”

Jeffrey attributed the PPP’s more recent willingness to discuss cooperation partly to pressure from the Biden administration, which had urged President Irfaan Ali’s government to pursue more inclusive and equitable governance.

He further suggested that the PPP’s celebratory response to the Republican victory in the United States, including a billboard erected in Georgetown and subsequently dismantled, may have exposed the party to political miscalculation and prompted efforts to repair relations.

He questioned whether the emergence of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party was truly the principal reason behind Jagdeo’s changing position, arguing that the PPP could have greater concerns about its international relationships than the electoral threat posed by WIN.

A sweeping constitutional reform agenda

Beyond his criticism, Jeffrey outlined an extensive programme of constitutional changes aimed at dismantling what he considers an autocratic and poorly accountable governance structure.

At the centre of his proposals is a fundamental restructuring of executive authority, which he argues has become excessively concentrated in the hands of the governing party.

He called for direct power-sharing arrangements, opposition veto mechanisms, supermajority requirements, greater decentralisation and stronger civil society oversight.

His recommendations include increasing directly elected parliamentary representatives from 20 to approximately 40, introducing constituency recall powers and guaranteeing Indigenous representation of at least 15 per cent in the National Assembly.

He also proposed annual ethnic audits to identify disparities and discrimination, an independent ethical ombudsman and constitutional protection for regional and local government funding, suggesting that 15 per cent of the national budget be allocated to those authorities.

On electoral reform, Jeffrey called for a completely new voters’ list, biometric safeguards, stronger GECOM independence and the removal of unnecessary obstacles facing smaller political parties.

He further advocated legally enforceable coalition agreements and an independent tribunal to resolve disputes between coalition partners.

These proposals revive longstanding debates about Guyana’s constitutional framework. The 1999–2001 constitutional reform process produced significant amendments but did not resolve fundamental disagreements over executive power, political accountability and ethnic inclusion.

Jeffrey’s intervention ultimately challenges the ruling party to demonstrate whether its rhetoric about cooperation will translate into institutional changes that limit executive authority.

The central question, he suggests, is whether Jagdeo’s call represents a genuine willingness to share power or another political calculation by a party that has resisted doing so for decades.