The Guyana EU Observers Report: Valid Recommendations Undermined By Questionable Framing
By Ron Cheong
News Americas, TORONTO, Canada, Fri. Nov. 28, 2025: The 2025 Guyana elections were peaceful, professionally executed, and despite heated rhetoric – remarkably smooth. But the debate that followed has been anything but. A jarring divergence emerged between the EU Observer Mission’s report and the assessments of other credible bodies, most notably the UNDP-backed evaluations. This exposed a bigger problem than election flaws – it exposed flawed narratives.
EU Observers release the report during a press conference at the Pegasus Suites and Corporate Centre in Kingston, Georgetown
When observers of equal stature view the same election and reach drastically different conclusions, the issue is no longer merely technical. It becomes a question of narrative, framing, and responsibility.
This piece is necessary precisely because of lingering dissonance from that gap. The European Union is held in high regard in Guyana. Its voice carries weight. When such a respected institution fields an observer team whose findings appear unbalanced, selectively sourced, or not fully reflective of the on-the-ground realities, it does a disservice – not only to Guyana, but to the EU’s own reputation as a neutral democratic partner.
A Country With Hard -Won Electoral Stability
To understand the gravity of this, one must recall that Guyana’s democracy is young and was severely tested just five years ago. The 2020 elections saw an unprecedented attempt by the incumbent to overturn the results. It took five months of diplomatic pressure – from the US, EU, CARICOM, the Commonwealth, and others – to ensure that voters’ will was respected and that the rightful government was sworn in.
That experience shaped both domestic expectations and international sensitivities for 2025. Guyanese citizens, political actors, and observers alike were determined that such a crisis should never repeat.
GECOM’s Improved Performance: A Rare Institutional Success
Against this backdrop, GECOM’s performance in 2025 stands out as a quiet institutional success. UNDP-supported capacity building, new monitoring mechanisms, stronger training for presiding officers, and clearer chain-of-custody procedures all contributed to an election that many experienced observers judged to be the most professionally administered in recent memory.
Polling stations opened on time, security forces remained neutral and restrained, tabulation procedures were transparent, and the count proceeded without credible interference. These are fundamental pillars of electoral integrity, and Guyana delivered on each of them.
The EU’s Report: Valid Recommendations Undermined by Questionable Framing
The EU report did contain useful recommendations – many relating to administrative efficiency and long-term institutional strengthening. But these were overshadowed by assessments that seemed out of step with observable realities.
A notable example was the claim that the “dominance of state media and politicised private media reduces voters’ ability to access pluralistic and balanced information.”
This assertion collapses under scrutiny.
Guyana’s media is not dominated by the state; it is dominated by polarisation. Stabroek News and Kaieteur News often adopt openly adversarial stances against the government. Guyana Times, in contrast, leans in the direction of the governing party, and the state-owned Chronicle typically reflects the views of whichever party is in power at the time. This environment can indeed confuse voters – but not because of a lack of pluralism. The problem is an excess of partisanship, not its absence.
When the EU report implies state dominance, it fundamentally mischaracterizes the landscape and, by extension, misdiagnoses the problem.
Unfair Assumptions and Uneven Standards
Other parts of the EU report raised similar concerns. The suggestion that building schools, hospitals, and public infrastructure constituted an “incumbency advantage” borders on the absurd. By that logic, any functional government that improves public services in an election year is unfairly influencing voters – an argument that would render many European governments equally suspect.
Similarly, criticizing the President for using a government helicopter—without contextualizing that a previous President used military helicopters more extensively, or that such travel is often a security necessity in a country with vast, remote regions – reveals a troubling lack of comparative perspective.
The Real Risks: Not Ballot Fraud, But Fragile Narratives
The 2025 elections show that Guyana’s most significant vulnerabilities do not lie in ballot integrity or election-day operations. They lie in political narratives – domestic and international – that can be shaped by incomplete evidence or preconceived expectations.
Observer missions carry immense influence. When their assessments diverge sharply, especially in ways that do not reflect the balance of evidence, they can fuel political distrust rather than reduce it.
Getting The Story Right
Guyana deserves scrutiny. But it also deserves accuracy. The 2025 elections were not perfect, yet they were peaceful, credible, and competently run. When an observer report magnifies weaknesses while overlooking strengths documented by others, it risks misrepresenting a country that has fought hard for democratic stability.
International community representatives seeking to help Guyana strengthen its democracy, must do the hard work of being thorough and balanced and follow basic democratic principles:
Highlight both positives and negatives – the multi-dimensional reality as it is rather than a narrowly focused narrative.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ron Cheong, born in Guyana, is a community activist and dedicated volunteer with an extensive international background in banking. Now residing in Toronto, Canada, he is a fellow of the Institute of Canadian Bankers and holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Toronto. His comments are his own and does not reflect those of News Americas or its parent company, ICN.
