Guyana’s politics has always been about razor-thin margins.
In 2011, the PPP won the presidency with just 48%, while the combined opposition — APNU and AFC — actually held the majority in Parliament.
In 2015, APNU+AFC edged out the PPP with just over 50%. And in 2020, the results dragged on for months in a bitter standoff, because the margins were too close and the system wasn’t built to handle that division. Time and again, our elections have been decided not by landslides, but by a few thousand votes.
Yet, under our constitution, the party (or coalition) with the most votes — even if it’s just 50.1% — takes full control of government. That means almost half the population is automatically locked out of decision-making.
Why This Matters
When 49% of Guyanese support one side, and 51% the other, the gap is razor thin. Still, the winner takes everything. That fuels division, deepens mistrust, and keeps us stuck in cycles of tension.
What If We Did It Differently?
Other democracies insist that governments must reflect a true majority — over 50% of the votes — and if no one crosses that threshold, coalitions are formed.
Imagine if Guyana embraced that principle:
✔️ Both government and opposition voices would help shape policy.
✔️ The country wouldn’t swing wildly every election cycle.
✔️ Power would be shared, forcing consensus and compromise.
A Way Forward
Guyana is too diverse, too rich in potential, and too small for “winner-takes-all” politics. Our history — from 2011 to 2015 to 2020 — shows that no single group can truly dominate. Our future must be built on inclusion, partnership, and power-sharing.
The Big Question
Should Guyana amend its constitution so that governments reflect not just the largest party, but the true majority of voters?
Let’s Gyaff about it 👇🏽. And if you believe Guyana deserves a fairer system, share this post to spark the conversation.
Rethinking Elections in Guyana: 49% vs 51% – Who Really Wins?
