Weeks after the ruling Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party secured its fourth consecutive term in the April 30 general election, the chair of the main opposition United Progressive Party (UPP), D. Gisele Isaac, has raised explosive allegations that systemic advantages, misuse of state assets, and direct voter bribes skewed the final result.
In a scathing opinion piece published Tuesday in the Daily Observer, Isaac delivered a damning indictment of the country’s electoral landscape, labeling Antigua and Barbuda’s democracy “plywood-built” – a fragile structure that inherently favors sitting governments through unfair constitutional and institutional advantages.
At the core of Isaac’s criticism is the argument that incumbent administrations hold an unbeatable advantage thanks to their unilateral control over all state institutions and resources. She specifically named key state bodies including the national Treasury, Immigration Department, Port Authority, Public Works Department, the Antigua Public Utilities Authority (APUA), ABS-TV and even the independent Electoral Commission as entities the ruling party leveraged for electoral gain. Unlike challengers, sitting leaders hold full authority over when, where, and how state resources are deployed during election cycles, creating a fundamentally uneven playing field that opposition groups can never overcome, she argued.
Beyond institutional bias, Isaac detailed what she claims was widespread and deliberate vote-buying during the recent campaign. She cited direct cash handouts to voters, campaign motorcades that paired promises of road repairs with free gasoline giveaways, and distribution of supermarket vouchers, personal gifts, and free concerts to sway voter sentiment. Isaac framed these tactics as exploitative of widespread economic hardship facing the country, arguing that the ruling party’s short-term inducements undercut opposition plans for long-term economic improvement.
“To thousands of families, scrunting because of the high cost of groceries and living with termites, the cash in hand and plywood were more attractive than the Opposition’s plans to make life better, healthier and more affordable,” Isaac wrote, acknowledging that widespread economic distress left many voters with little choice but to accept immediate assistance over future policy gains. She added that the cycle of vote-buying perpetuates poverty, leaving voters dependent on ruling party handouts rather than building sustainable economic growth.
Isaac also openly addressed internal instability that weakened the UPP in the lead-up to the election, confirming reports of high-profile party defections, infiltration by “double-agents” aligned with the ruling party, and internal disagreements over key campaign decisions. Despite these challenges, she defended the UPP’s campaign performance, arguing that the opposition overcame massive resource disadvantages to mount a credible challenge. “Without apology I will say, again, that the Opposition — with its small resources but great goodwill and superior talent — pulled off an election campaign that was A+,” she wrote.
The veteran political leader also pulled no punches on the outsized role of corporate and private donor influence in national politics. She argued that election outcomes and subsequent government policy are ultimately controlled not by voters, but by wealthy interests that fund political campaigns. “Vote all you want — whether for a political leader or a party; it is those who open the purse — or keep it closed — that determine the outcome,” she wrote.
Isaac closed her column with a sober warning about the long-term health of Antigua and Barbuda’s democratic system, admitting that she struggles to encourage public trust and electoral participation when the principle of “one man, one vote” does not align with the reality of how elections are run in the country. Her comments represent one of the most high-profile critiques of the island nation’s electoral system from a major opposition leader in recent years, opening new conversation about the need for electoral reform to level the political playing field.