WIN will lose the election because of its manifesto

ON Thursday last, the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party launched its 2025 manifesto, which its General Secretary Odessa Primus declared was “historic.” The other WIN candidates, Natasha Singh-Lewis, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, Dawn Hastings-Williams, and Vishnu Panday, read out parts of the party’s manifesto, which covered sectors such as health, education, housing, ICT, crime and security, oil and gas, and agriculture, among others.
WIN Party leader, Azruddin Mohamed, delivered a speech and fielded questions from an alert and informed media. He, along with members of the WIN team, seemed very uncomfortable and agitated by the media’s line of questioning.
Mohamed was saved yet again by his hostile party supporters, who were heckling the media at the event. But the excitement and expectation of a sound plan came to a halt once the pages of the manifesto faced the scrutiny of analysts, politicians, media and ordinary people with a political eye.
Firstly, the WIN manifesto lacks originality and ideas that could take Guyana into the future. It proves that the WIN is playing in our faces and is a copycat. By reading the manifesto that WIN has conjured up, anyone with a modicum of sense would conclude it is lazy and a clear case of intellectual incompetence.
WIN copied the ideas and plans that were already part of the manifestos of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), the Alliance for Change (AFC), and the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) last election cycle.
For instance, analysing the WIN plans for the housing development project on page 13 of the manifesto document, the public would get the sense that lower-cost homes, housing design codes, home protection law, and Foundation Assistance Grant are new ideas. No. All of them were copied from programmes piloted by the PPP Government and are actually in place. The foundation assistance grant is the same as the Cement and Steel Voucher Programme, save and except that under WIN, the public is promised large amounts of cash.
In the education sector, thievery is even more blatant and shameless. All WIN’s plans are the PPP, APNU, and AFC’s plans under a new name. All WIN has done is multiply the sum by two or say they will expand the project. For example, pages 26, 27 and 28 of WIN’s manifesto hardly have any new and groundbreaking ideas. They have the policies that originated with the PPP, such as the school feeding programme, which WIN vows to expand after hearing the PPP 2025 manifesto plans.
WIN shamefully took the PPP 2025 budget measures and said it would increase these by as much as 1000% or double by half. The public could check pages 12 and 13. Nothing is new and bright. No fresh thinking patterns, just highway banditry. WIN dressed all the PPP measures in new clothes with more money. Reading this manifesto was like reading everything that PPP, APNU, and AFC would have already done and have been talking about doing over the last couple of months. Whether it is ending blackouts or distributing agrochemicals, it was done or is being done.
WIN also stole President Mohamed Irfaan Ali’s initiatives and plans that he has been announcing in various regions over the last three months. It will not take a magician to realise that many of the initiatives included in the WIN blueprint on pages 36 to 60 are the President’s ideas. Everything mentioned in the manifesto about AI was first revealed by President Ali.
It is barefaced highway banditry and thievery of the policies and plans of these two political gamechangers, more so the PPP.
Secondly, WIN must identify the individuals or groups it claims to have consulted when crafting this manifesto. When were the consultations held? Where were the consultations? The public is no fool, and they know bullshit when it is served as cake. Mohamed knows he lied, and these widespread consultations took place in his dreams.
He is bluffing and mamaguying the public. Primus, a comedian, is learning about political acting, while Mohamed is struggling to, at the very least, be a politician who is interested in politics.
They skewed up the launch, and the media were on their case as they should be. After all, Mohamed set the tone for the press launch. He delivered a short speech, which was a heap of nothingness. He continued to deliver scripted responses and one-liners. To the public, Mohamed was bankrupt of ideas and uninspiring, regardless of the staged party support at the launch. It was painful to watch him crash out, as he had no economic plan or policies that were interesting. He did not defend his suite of plans. He could not give any insight on how he would cost or finance the plan.
Maybe he did not even read his manifesto, and so, he kept deflecting. The truth is this is the work of AI and a group of ‘has-been’ politicians and parliamentarians.
Thirdly, no political party would take pride in referring to itself as a victim. Mohamed does this almost every time the media approaches him with difficult questions that require intellectual wit, political knowledge and academic analyses. He cowered away, pretending the PPP was coming after him politically. The media should invite him to a debate or discussion of this manifesto, as elections are right around the corner.
If he wants to be president, then he must act like a president and stop hiding under Primus’ skirt. He must develop the testicular fortitude to allow himself to be grilled on this manifesto.
Seriously, a National Wind Power and Solar Project to reduce energy costs by 70 per cent? No details as to the project cost or how it will work? And, where is the money coming from?
The manifesto states that 372,000 people live in poverty. Huh? Where did WIN get the figure? This document said that WIN would increase public servants’ pay by 50 per cent, but it does not mention where the money would come from. How sustainable is this? What are the fiscal incentives?
A Guyana Transportation Agency? Huh? WIN is not serious again. Reduce housing cost by 40 per cent? An Indigenous credit union was mentioned in the manifesto plans, but there is no other information that explains this policy. WIN manifesto promises to increase carbon credit payout to Amerindian villages.
A whole 38 to 65 per cent of Guyanese women are abused? This is highly questionable information included to make the WIN manifesto more appealing. Define the role of ministers vs. permanent secretaries. Why? Seriously? WIN is playing in the public’s face. It is not cute.
Finally, American Author Herman Melville, who is a novelist, said, “It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.” WIN lost many voters on Thursday. Perhaps, WIN’s ideas, plans and policies are gone with the wind because of the patchwork and political assassination of the manifestos, particularly of the PPP.
The WIN manifesto bears a shocking resemblance to the manifesto of the United National Congress of Trinidad and Tobago. WIN must have the maturity to develop plans and policies that are based upon realism and practicality. WIN must have engagements with stakeholders and must do the political work. Surely, the public would take it seriously, and Guyana’s youth population would embrace it as the future of politics. For as long as WIN does not show care for the people, it will not make a dent in the local political scene.