THE recent column by Nazim Baksh, “Azruddin’s ‘nothing for you’ budget lie” (Feb 1, GC), is a masterclass in connecting the dots between political rhetoric and social consequence. Baksh has done brilliantly to bridge a gap that is often ignored in our national discourse: the inextricable link between a civil conversation and the delivery of justice.
For some time, including in my pieces last year in this newspaper (SN, 24/8) on “how we speak to each other,” I have advocated for a comprehensive Civic Education project. My argument has been that civility is the bedrock of a functioning society.
However, Baksh’s analysis adds a critical layer of depth. He reminds us that when political actors use their platforms to distort the reality of a national budget, they aren’t just being “uncivil,” they are also committing an act of injustice against the citizenry by obscuring the path to progress.
This brings us to the philosophical necessity of what Jürgen Habermas called the “ideal speech situation.” For a democracy to truly thrive, the conversation between the state and its people must be systematically undistorted. It must be free from the pressures of social prejudices, racial gatekeeping, and, crucially, from the “strategic distortion” practised by those who prioritise oppositional power over national truth.
In Guyana, we often hide behind the traditional view of the press as a “neutral watchdog.” Yet, we must confront the reality that when the “watchdog” becomes a megaphone for only oppositional voices, the conversation is no longer undistorted. It becomes a barrier.
A prime example is the current dismissal of the 2026 budget by the Leader of the Opposition. To characterise a $1.5 trillion investment in our collective future as “nothing” is a calculated attempt to manufacture a false reality.
When such a narrative is amplified without rigorous challenge, it suppresses the civic spirit of the people. It tells the youth, the workers, and the entrepreneurs that the bridges, hospitals, and educational frameworks being built are not for them.
This is more than a political disagreement; it is a direct assault on the project of national enlightenment.
The evolution of Guyana is currently visible in every new road and every scholarship awarded. But for this physical transformation to reach its peak, we must undergo a mental and communicative transformation. We need a discourse that recognises justice not as a handout, but as a fair and honest representation of our shared growth.
By moving away from the “nothing for you” rhetoric and toward a model of “communicative action,” we can ensure that the blueprint for our nation’s future is understood and owned by every citizen.
We owe it to ourselves to speak a language of reality, not one of manufactured despair.