OPINION: The PPP state and the advent of Trump: Implications for Guyana’s domestic and foreign policy

Last Updated on Sunday, 23 March 2025, 12:04 by Writer

by Nigel Westmaas

On November 7, 2024, following Donald Trump’s victory at the American polls, First Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s reaction was notable not only for its promptness but for the unmistakable glee it conveyed. According to News Source at the time, “US President-elect Donald Trump is two months away from being sworn in, but Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo is already planning to engage the incoming Trump administration to counter what he considers to be ‘lies’ told about the Guyana Government.”

Later, following Trump’s inauguration, President Irfan Ali offered a more traditional message of congratulations between heads of state. In this moment, the current Guyana government’s responses to the new regime in Washington appears ready to crystallize a drastic shift in Guyana’s ideological trajectory under the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), a trajectory that carries profound implications for domestic governance and foreign policy alike.

If Guyana’s courtship of Trumpism extends beyond routine diplomacy to ongoing “transactional” behaviors that affect democracy in both countries and in the wider world that will be a dangerous development for Guyana, and its implications might well extend to domestic politics and foreign affairs. 

Cloaked in empty rhetoric, the PPP administration has repeatedly undermined its promise of national unity by centralising power. Further, by embracing the constitutional framework established during Burnham’s era—which places extensive powers in the presidency—the PPP demonstrates a clear preference for concentrated authority rather than constitutional restraint and effective checks and balances. This centralization of power has emboldened the administration to attempt to silence dissent at home and abroad. Contempt for freedom of the press (it’s instructive to note that then President Jagdeo had signed the “Declaration of Chapultepec” in 2002 which guarantees freedom of the press and expression), bribery of sections of the population, the whittling down of parliament (inclusive of the unprecedented censoring of the term “corruption” in the National Assembly), and concurrent desire to rule with the unchecked authority of the Burnham constitution mark their governance style. This proto-authoritarian impulse thrives under the expectation that external oversight—even from entities as influential as the U.S. Congress—can be deflected or managed, particularly with a Trump regime that has shown little regard for democratic norms in what Trump once infamously referred to as “s****hole countries,” as long as their policies align with U.S. economic and ideological agendas.

The PPP’s transformation from its Marxist-Leninist roots to a potential quid pro quo alliance with a US state gone rogue marks a significant ideological shift. But not so fast. Guyana’s constitution still retains socialist vestiges—most notably in Article 1, which defines the nation as “an indivisible secular democratic sovereign state in the course of transition from capitalism to socialism.” This constitutional commitment might be outdated but stands in stark contrast to the government’s recent actions and alliances. Such ideological dissonance can potentially create a tangible tension in the administration’s geopolitical engagements, especially with figures and nations fundamentally opposed to socialism in any form. Yet, the enduring provisions of the constitution, fortified by Article 164 (an overwhelming majority vote required to enact constitutional change), mean that any attempt to alter Article 1 could invite broader constitutional reforms, potentially curbing the executive powers that the PPP has come to covet. 

The irony could not be more profound. The People’s Progressive Party (PPP), once the vanguard of anti-imperialism and a fierce critic of authoritarian rule, now clings to executive power with the same unyielding grip as the Burnham regime it once condemned. The party that once positioned itself as the voice of the oppressed now mirrors the very forces it sought to dismantle.

The current government’s drift toward what one scholar defines as “flexible authoritarianism” is unsurprising, aligning closely with a global trend where Trumpian politics cast a long shadow. Guyana now stands at a critical crossroads, confronting the question of whether it can traverse these turbulent times without forsaking its international credibility. 

And in a historical twist that underscores the cyclical – or perhaps cynical – nature of Guyana’s political evolution, the PPP has assumed the role once played by the People’s National Congress (PNC) in the 1960s—seemingly poised to align itself with the negative aspects of American foreign policy and, by extension, the very imperial ambitions it once railed against. If it does, this strategic realignment will not merely be a matter of diplomatic necessity (as with the Venezuela threat) but an ideological capitulation, especially if it condescends to Washington’s modern catchwords and actions, with an eye to the PPP’s own political dominance at home. In doing so, the PPP government has completed a strikingly ironic full circle. No longer the radical alternative it once claimed to be, the PPP state is in danger of being just another custodian of political opportunism, indistinguishable from a host of similar regimes eager to curry favor with Trumpism. Far from resisting imperial influence while acting on national unity, the party is apparently now hustling to kiss rings in Washington, trading the rhetoric of revolution and working class change for the currency of compliance and quid pro quo. 

FOREIGN POLICY 

How will the incoming Trump administration engage with Guyana’s historically progressive foreign policy patterns? Guyana risks squandering its hard-earned reputation as a principled voice for small-state equality for decades in forums like the United Nations and bodies within the UN like the Forum of Small States (FOSS). This shift undermines the country’s leadership on pressing global issues such as climate change and justice, reducing it to a vassal state in the service of transactional diplomacy. Already there are clear indications that Guyana, unlike its Trinidadian, Barbadian and Vincentian partners appears to be dithering on the threats issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Cuba. Will Guyana now retreat from these positions due to pressure from a marauding Trump and his compliant Secretary of State—who himself ultimately will defer major policy decisions to his boss who is constantly fixated on constant praise and adulation and who could change his stance with any state, authoritarian or democratic, on a whim? A recent Demerara Waves opinion piece offered an embarrassingly fawning endorsement of Rubio, seemingly aimed at legitimising the principles of an American administration that is increasingly at odds with both the region and the wider world.

The Trumpian worldview poses significant threats to global institutions, exemplified by the U.S. withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and USAID, as well as reduced engagement with the United Nations. For Guyana, the critical question arises: What implications might emerge for its ongoing case against Venezuela before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) if a Trump-led U.S. administration refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the ICJ—particularly as the court handles high-profile issues such as war crimes in Gaza? A broader American rejection of the ICJ could severely undermine Guyana’s pursuit of justice, leaving the country diplomatically and geopolitically vulnerable as its own case against Venezuela proceeds before the same international body. While U.S. strategic support against Venezuela is beneficial, it should not automatically supersede decades of diplomatic efforts with other international allies, reliance on the ICJ, and the necessity for Guyana to develop its own military capabilities alongside sustained national unity initiatives.

Trump’s second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement could likewise influence how Guyana manages its environmental policies, particularly in the oil and gas sector, potentially diminishing emphasis on renewable energy and climate resilience previously championed by international partnership and by the proclaimed “champion of the earth.” The administration now faces a delicate balancing act: it must uphold its commitments under the Paris Accord, preserve its credibility as a leader on climate justice, and reject the new US administration’s reckless denial of the climate crisis.

All these potential changes in Guyanese foreign policy raise an additional question: Can the PPP’s newer spokespersons and media acolytes successfully perform a volte-face, adapting to and publicly aligning themselves with President Ali’s and First Vice President Jagdeo’s recent signals of embracing Trumpian-style politics, despite their earlier condemnation of Trump and his agenda in the US and the world?

But there are limitations. Many veteran members within the PPP may find the current regime’s transactional approach and ideological shifts at odds with the party’s historically established positions on international issues. The nation’s upcoming foreign policy decisions and actions will offer revealing insights: will Guyana uphold its longstanding commitment to sovereignty and justice, or will it trade these foundational principles and global standing for immediate economic and political gains through Washington’s new, albeit Trumpian priorities?