The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Government has successfully piloted its colossal GY$1.558 trillion 2026 Budget under the theme “Putting People First.” The budget features significant allocations for transformative infrastructural development across various sectors including energy, health, education, and security sectors. Substantial resources have also been set aside for social programmes, including cash grants and other initiatives touted heavily to improving the lives of citizens.
Throughout the often-fiery debates in the House, Members of Parliament on the Government’s side repeatedly invoked the party’s 2025 Regional and General Elections Manifesto, framing it as the covenant forged with the electorate and the very foundation upon which the 2026 Budget now stands. In their presentations, the manifesto was described not merely as a list of promise, but as guiding scripture.
This framing, however, did not go unchallenged. A Partnership for National Unity Member of Parliament, Dr. Dexter Todd, was not easily swayed. He was among the first to vociferously argue that a budget built on an election manifesto cannot truly represent the will of the electorate. The attorney-at-law-turned-politician was keen to underscore a valid point: the PPP/C secured only a share of the ballots cast at the September 2025 General and Regional Elections.
But he did not stop there. The political newcomer argued that if a significant segment of the electorate voted for other parties, it meant that they did not endorse the PPP/C’s manifesto and therefore, the budget would not garner their favour. He was, of course, ripping at the budget’s theme.
Unfortunately for Dr. Todd, his argument exploded it tracks. The opposite side’s rebuttal was swift and brutal: “the government has the electoral mandate”. It was Government MP, Sanjeev Datadin who took the task of explaining that reality. Datadin noted that in a parliamentary democracy such as ours, the party that secures the most seats forms the Government. He explained that the winning party is therefore vested with the authority to govern, and that authority is not ceremonial. He emphasised that that authority bestowed upon that party grants it the responsibility to craft policies, introduce legislation, and present a national budget reflective of its philosophy.
It is customary – nay, imperative – that a governing party would draw from its manifesto in shaping its budget. The manifesto is essentially a promise to the people – to all of the people, not only a percentage of the electorate from which parties expect to secure votes.
But what of the wrath that falls upon a government that fails to implement its manifesto? The consequences would be disastrous. That party would be inviting upon itself legitimate claims of trickery or worse. The PPP/C knows this all too well and perhaps Dr. Todd should have been paying more attention. Afterall, we all witnesses what befell the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) in the not-so-distant past.
In 2015, after secured victory at the polls, APNU+AFC played fast and loose with its Manifesto. And yes, one may argue that the administration was unable to bring its manifesto to fruition because its legal arm had been severed by a no-confidence motion in 2018. This affected its ability to pass budgets. However, this was two years after its much touted “First 100 Days in Office” fell on its sword. That partially unrealised list of promises became a political albatross around the Coalition Government’s neck, and it was the PPP/C, while in opposition, that flayed the David Granger-led government for failing to achieve its stated goals and deliver the promised benefits to the people.
While the jury is still out on whether APNU+AFC’s nonadherence was the sole reason it failed to retain power in 2020, there is no denying the fact that the party’s failure to deliver played a major role in eroding citizens’ trust in the Granger-led government. Those unfulfilled promises marked the beginning of APNU+AFC’s long, hard fall from grace. The lessons from that period remain instructive. Perhaps this is the reason why the PPP/C has been religiously sticking to its manifesto and has affixed it as the central pillar of its 2026 Budget.
Dr. Todd’s contention, though persuasive, hits another roadblock. If a governing party is criticised for departing from its manifesto, can another now be faulted for adhering to its? If the promises made to the electorate are not given life in a budget, would that not equally amount to a betrayal of those who voted for the party based on those promises?
Dr. Todd further argued that the Irfaan Ali-led Administration, in the interest of gaining favour from the collective electorate, should have engaged in consultations with the parties that secured the votes that the PPP/C failed to acquire. Perhaps this could have allowed the concerns and interests of those constituents to find a place in the budget.
The suggestion is, on its face, an admirable one. Indeed, such engagements would not have undermined the Government’s mandate – not completely but would have instead demonstrate political maturity and respect for dissenting voices.
Also, by adopting this approach, the Government could have demonstrated to its detractors that it is indeed a disciple of what it preaches: “One Guyana.” Lastly, such engagements could have placed the PPP/C government beyond reproach by aligning itself more closely with its 2026 Budget theme of putting [all of the] people first.
Dr. Todd’s call has been heard, but for now, however, it reflects merely a hope for inclusive governance within a political landscape often characterized as adversarial. Yet his is not a lone voice in the wilderness. Several of his colleagues also expressed the view that meaningful pre-budget consultations were imperative, suggesting that such engagements could have fostered a climate in which opposition support might have been more readily secured. In perfect world, perhaps, but in this winner takes all system, even if such consultations were undertaken, they would have likely evolved into a protracted and arduous process of negotiations. Noone would be too keen on bending a knee.
And if the government were to amend its budget plans to accommodate those who did not vote for it, would it not be acting against the very electorate whose support it secured on the strength of that manifesto?
Dr. Todd’s call for wider consultation, though noble in intention, if answered, could potentially be a slap in the face of the majority of voters. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or so it goes. Like it or not, the 2026 Budget is a step towards the fulfilment of the PPP/C’s promise.
Nonetheless, Dr. Todd should not be dissuaded. He still has work to do. He can still ensure that the government keeps its promises by bringing motions, holding the administration to account in parliamentary committees, and highlighting any instances of discrimination or neglect.
