Guyana’s democratic space is increasingly crowded not by serious policy debate or principled opposition, but by a growing class of disaffected individuals who seem more interested in fleeting attention than in long-term national progress. These individuals—often operating loudly on social media—have turned political criticism into a performance in which attacking government ministers becomes a shortcut to relevance, engagement, and momentary fame.
In any democracy, dissent is essential. Governments must be scrutinised, challenged, and held accountable. However, what Guyana is witnessing today is not a structured opposition grounded in evidence or policy alternatives, but a culture of constant outrage. Social media platforms have enabled individuals with limited knowledge, credibility, experience, or accountability to present themselves as defenders of democracy while engaging in relentless personal attacks on elected officials.
This phenomenon thrives on simplification. Complex governance issues—such as oil revenue management, infrastructure development, ethnic relations, public procurement, or foreign policy—are reduced to inflammatory one-liners and selective narratives. Ministers are accused, intentions are questioned, and motives are distorted, often without context or verification. The goal is rarely clarity; it is virality.
Specific online ecosystems aligned with opposition politics, particularly those orbiting the PNC and Win Parties, have allowed this behaviour to flourish unchecked. Instead of strengthening opposition credibility, these spaces have normalised a style of engagement in which volume is mistaken for validity and aggression for courage. Serious opposition work—policy research, legislative scrutiny, grassroots organising—is overshadowed by those who shout the loudest online.
A recurring tactic among these 15-minute fame seekers is moral grandstanding. Allegations of corruption, racial discrimination, or authoritarianism are circulated repeatedly without substantiation. While corruption and inequality are legitimate concerns that deserve investigation, weaponising these claims for attention cheapens them. When every disagreement is framed as a scandal, and every policy decision is assumed to be malicious, genuine accountability efforts lose credibility.
Equally damaging is the personalisation of attacks. Instead of challenging decisions or policies, these actors obsessively target individual ministers, turning them into caricatures. This approach poisons political culture by fostering harassment, misinformation, and public distrust. It also discourages capable professionals from entering public service, knowing they may become targets of unrestrained online abuse rather than fair criticism.
Another troubling trend is the misuse of civil society’s language. Some individuals cloak themselves in the rhetoric of activism and human rights while avoiding the discipline genuine advocacy requires. Genuine civil society engagement involves documentation, legal action, institutional dialogue, and sustained community work. By contrast, performative activists appear briefly, issue sweeping condemnations on social media, and then retreat—contributing more noise than change.
International platforms are also being exploited. Selective narratives are presented to foreign audiences, including international organisations and governments, often stripped of local context. This not only misrepresents Guyana’s realities but also risks undermining the country’s credibility at a time when it is navigating significant global attention due to its economic transformation.
The irony is that this culture of outrage ultimately weakens the very causes these individuals claim to champion. When criticism becomes constant and exaggerated, the public grows desensitised. Citizens struggle to distinguish between legitimate concerns and manufactured controversies. Trust erodes—not just in the government, but also in public voices.
Opposition newspapers support these 15-minute fame-seekers, and some so-called influencers use their social media platforms to give these insignificant individuals a voice to attack the present government. There are around 21 of them, whose names we do not even care to mention, seeking 15 minutes of fame. If they believe in democracy, they should stand for election, but no, they know that together they won’t even get 500 votes across the whole country.
These individuals must understand the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘election’. They are free to stand as candidates in elections and seek votes from the electorate. They know the voters will tell them to get lost. Hence, for publicity, they use anti-government newspapers and social media platforms to gain their 15 minutes of fame. In Guyana, these frustrated individuals do not care about voters but about their own miserable lives, devoid of achievement and purpose, and about their distorted political views, all to gain 15 minutes of fame.
This environment also harms the democratic opposition. A strong opposition offers alternatives, articulates clear policy positions, and demonstrates readiness to govern. When opposition spaces are dominated by individuals seeking online relevance, serious leaders are drowned out, and political renewal is delayed.
Guyana stands at a critical juncture. With unprecedented economic opportunities and complex social challenges ahead, the country needs mature political engagement from all sides. Constructive criticism, evidence-based debate, and responsible leadership are essential to nation-building. What Guyana does not need is a political culture driven by likes, shares, and momentary outrage.
In the CARICOM region, Guyana is the only country with these so-called attention-seekers who want to impose their fake, banal ideas on the public. The good news is that the people of Guyana ignore these buffoons and get on with their lives.
The PPP party won a landslide victory, and voters overwhelmingly endorsed the PPP to govern for the next five years. The PPP government’s main objective is to look after the welfare of all Guyanese, improve their standard of living, and protect the country’s sovereignty. Our research has confirmed that the majority of voters do not care at all about the 21 false fame seekers. The government must do the same and focus on the country’s economic progress, which the present government has been mandated to pursue and has already begun.
15 minutes of online fame may satisfy individual egos, but it does nothing to improve governance, unity, or prosperity. If Guyana’s democracy is to mature, its public discourse must rise above spectacle and return to substance. The nation’s future deserves more than noise; it deserves seriousness, responsibility, and vision.5987