President Irfaan Ali recently declared that his administration is not merely constructing “hospitals, roads, bridges and buildings,” but is instead “building a nation.” It is an ambitious claim—one that deserves careful examination. For while infrastructure is an important component of national development, nation-building is measured ultimately by the philosophical underpinning of nation and identity, strength of political and civil institutions, the quality of governance, the rule of law, political inclusiveness and the confidence citizens place in its democratic system.
If infrastructure alone were sufficient to build nations, history would have produced far more successful states than it has. Roads, bridges, hospitals, none of these, on their own, can create national unity or democratic legitimacy. These emerge only when governments strengthen institutions, respect constitutional norms and foster trust across society. It is against this broader understanding of nation-building that the Ali administration’s record should be assessed.
Guyana’s post-oil era has undoubtedly been characterised by an unprecedented infrastructure programme. Yet it seems that physical transformation is being confused with institutional transformation; a nation could only be built through accountable governance and respect for democratic institutions. One area where this distinction becomes particularly important is the relationship between Mr. Ali’s Government and the Office of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Office of the Leader of the Opposition exists because the Constitution recognises that democratic legitimacy extends beyond the governing party. Following the 2025 General and Regional Elections, the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) list secured 109,000 votes, making it the second-largest electoral bloc in the country. If the votes for the Executive Presidency carry constitutional weight, then likewise, so does the vote that produces the Leader of the Opposition. All efforts to diminish the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, therefore, risks weakening one of the constitutional institutions designed to preserve democratic balance – the antithesis of democracy.
The Ali administration’s disposition to the Leader of the Opposition is also reflected in the broader functioning of Parliament itself. Reduced scheduling of parliamentary sittings, delayed activation of parliamentary committees and blunting the effectiveness of the Public Accounts Committee might have already shaped the public’s perception of accountability. Parliament exists to scrutinise the Executive, not simply to endorse it. When oversight appears inconsistent or delayed, any claim to democratic governance rings hollow.
Equally important is the management of public finances. Accountability for the expenditure of public resources is one of the defining responsibilities of any government as Mr. Ali fully well knows since he personally had cause to replace nine Regional Executive Officers for accountability issues recently. Fiscal transparency is a democratic obligation only when institutions command public confidence because they operate openly, consistently and within the framework of the law. This is why nation-building cannot be reduced to infrastructure alone.
Another pillar upon which nation-building is constructed is the cultural ethos that underpins national identity. Guyana is a diverse nation deriving from indigenous peoples, slave and indentured descendants. Political and economic spaces were and still are competitive. While socially Guyanese have learnt to co-exist this cannot be attributed to any post-independence governments. Post oil Guyana has seen an equally transformative society with influxes of economic migrants from different parts of the globe, and while welcomed, it has to be noted that in many spheres, excepting the political, large segments of Guyanese are being sidelined from the fruits of their new-found patrimony. When combined with its unwillingness to engage political opponents as legitimate constitutional actors, no demonstrative vibrant parliamentary oversight, or respect for independent institutions and adherence to the principles of transparency and accountability, the foundations of national development, if it can be so defined, is being built on illusions.
President Ali has every right to argue that his administration is transforming Guyana. The country’s expanding infrastructure is visible for all to see. But if he wishes to persuade Guyanese that he is genuinely building a nation, he must demonstrate that his conviction lies in strengthened democratic institutions more than in any bridge, highway or public building. To say that it takes concrete to build a nation is illusionary, only accountable democratic governance can.
Discussion