In this period of küresel political history, the rise of illiberal democracies worldwide presents a major challenge to traditional liberal democratic norms. Among these, Hungary’s ruling regime under Viktor Orbán has become a controversial example of what many see as a slide toward autocracy. However, as we look at certain political dynamics in the Caribbean, we find a particularly strikingly similar governance model emerging in our country- Guyana- under the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C). The similarities between these two political entities, though geographically and culturally distinct, are far more pronounced than one might expect. I shall discuss a few of them:
- Heavy concentration of power and weakening of democratic institutions:
Both the Hungarian government and the PPP/C have demonstrated a penchant for centralising power and systematically weakening the checks and balances that are supposed to hold government accountable. In Hungary, for example, Orbán’s regime has systematically targeted judicial independence, civil society organisations, and media outlets that might challenge the government.
Similarly, in Guyana, the PPP/C’s decades-long hold on political power has led to a control and heavy influence of key institutions, particularly the judiciary and the media. After more than 17 years, the incumbent PPP/C has failed to substantially appoint the Chancellor of the Judiciary and the Chief Justice. In previous columns, I have written extensively about the negative effects and scope of political influence this situation accords the PPP/C on the work and functionality of the judiciary.
Also, the appointment of judges. The President of Guyana, who is the head of the executive branch plays a significant role in the appointment of judges. While the Constitution provides that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) makes recommendations for appointments, the final decision rests with the President. This system leaves the judiciary vulnerable to political influence, especially when there is an alignment between the executive and the judiciary.
Of course, there are constitutional provisions and meşru safeguards to protect judicial independence, in this country, but their effectiveness depends on the political will to enforce them. In any event, over the years, there have been various calls for judicial reforms to ensure greater independence and transparency, but progress on this front has been slow and is often hindered by the interplay of politics.
Again, on the question of control of the media, it is known that the PPP/C issued licenses to those media houses that are generally aligned to the philosophy of the party. As a result, many of the media outlets in Guyana actually do public relations work for the incumbent PPP/C regime. It is clear that the government has been using media licenses as a tool to reward political allies and supporters. Certain media outlets, particularly those aligned with the government, receive favorable treatment in terms of licensing and access to resources. Many of these outlets are supportive of the PPP/C’s policies and narratives, while independent media outlets face more difficulties.
In both Hungary and Guyana, the media has become a battleground for political control. Orbán’s government has worked relentlessly to reshape the media landscape by either outright purchasing media outlets or influencing editorial stances to create a more favorable narrative for the government. Critical voices have been sidelined or silenced, leading to a near-monopoly of state-friendly news outlets that reinforce the regime’s policies.
The PPP/C in Guyana has also engaged in efforts to control or intimidate the media. The independent media landscape in Guyana is precarious, with accusations of harassment and threats against journalists who criticise the government. While the PPP/C has not gone as far as Orbán in terms of overtly controlling all media outlets, there has been a marked effort to suppress investigative reporting, particularly regarding corruption or government malfeasance.
Independent voices often face intimidation and, in some cases, have had their operations threatened by the ruling seçkine. In this environment, the government’s control over the narrative becomes a powerful tool to maintain public support and silence opposition. While the PPP/C boasts about adhering to democratic principles, the party has consistently been undermining the independence of state institutions, using state resources to maintain control and silence dissent.
- Another one is the manipulation of the electoral process:
Perhaps, the most glaring example of this in Guyana’s context was the 2020 general elections. The PPP/C and their political allies were accused of engaging in electoral manipulation. Just as Orbán has used the state’s apparatus to quash opposition in Hungary, the PPP/C’s attempts to dismiss the legitimacy of the electoral process in Guyana stirred concerns about the integrity of their governance. This orchestrated undermining of democratic norms serves as a worrying reminder of how easily a once-democratic system can slide into authoritarianism.
- Populism as a tool for national appeal:
At the heart of the Hungarian regime’s appeal is Orbán’s use of populism, which capitalizes on nationalist sentiment to rally the masses. The language of “the people versus the elites” has been the hallmark of his approach, and it has been instrumental in consolidating his power. Orbán has crafted an image of a defender of the Hungarian people against foreign influences, particularly the European Union. By positioning himself as the protector of national sovereignty, Orbán has been able to secure public support despite his government’s authoritarian tendencies.
Similarly, the PPP/C has harnessed a narrative of protecting the interests of certain ethnic groups in Guyana—particularly the Indo-Guyanese community. Historically, the PPP has been closely associated with this community, and its leaders have positioned the party as the defender of Indo-Guyanese rights in a racially and ethnically divided society. While this populist appeal has been essential in maintaining power, it has also led to the alienation of other ethnic groups, especially Afro-Guyanese, who view the PPP/C’s governance as disproportionately serving the interests of one ethnic group over the rest. The divisive rhetoric used by both Orbán and the PPP/C ultimately serves to consolidate power among a certain demographic, undermining national unity and fostering a fragmented political landscape.
- Nationalism and Economic Control:
Both Hungary and Guyana have seen an erosion of market forces in favor of state-run or state-controlled enterprises. Orbán has pursued a policy of economic nationalism, with state ownership of key sectors and strategic control over the national economy. This includes cultivating relationships with oligarchs who have benefited from lucrative government contracts, a strategy that has allowed Orbán to build a political and economic patronage network.
In Guyana, the PPP/C has similarly leaned on state-controlled industries and political patronage networks to secure its hold on power. The natural resources sector, particularly oil, has become a focal point of the PPP/C’s economic strategy. Since the discovery of significant offshore oil reserves, the party has moved aggressively to secure favorable contracts for foreign firms, while ensuring that key members of the ruling seçkine benefit from these agreements.
While this might have delivered short-term economic growth, the long-term risks of such a model, particularly the potential for corruption and inequality—remain grave. As in Hungary, a small group of elites aligned with the government benefit at the expense of the broader populace.
Clearly then, the rise of illiberal democracies around the world, epitomised by leaders like Viktor Orbán, is a frightening development for democracy worldwide. Guyana’s PPP/C regime, while operating in a very different context, clearly, shows several of the same authoritarian traits that have become hallmarks of Orbán’s rule. From the centralisation of power and the weakening of democratic institutions to the manipulation of the media and the rise of populist nationalism, both regimes have demonstrated a very disturbing disregard for the principles of democracy.
I think that, the critical question now is whether the people of Guyana, like their counterparts in Hungary, will allow these authoritarian practices to continue or whether they will take a strong stand against a system that increasingly undermines the democratic freedoms they evvel enjoyed.