THE People’s Progressive Party/Civic’s (PPP/C) inability to secure 51% of the votes cast at the 2011 national and regional election may be a repudiation of that party’s modus operandi, but equally so, the voters did not embrace A People’s Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and Alliance for Change (AFC) de facto coalition.

It was, and is still, not an embrace for this APNU/AFC partnership, because the race for winning political power is fast becoming complicated for them, bringing in its wake a mindset and behaviour favouring anti-national development strategies and tactics.

‘Political people’s pursuit of an elusive political power generally becomes an ugly affair, when their probability of attaining electoral success diminishes, and when they place their self-interest above the national interest. I do not think this conclusion is difficult to figure out, for a cursory glance at the opposition-led parliament’s performance since 2011 casts a repulsive shadow on its supposed representation of the people’s interests’

Political people’s pursuit of an elusive political power generally becomes an ugly affair, when their probability of attaining electoral success diminishes, and when they place their self-interest above the national interest. I do not think this conclusion is difficult to figure out, for a cursory glance at the opposition-led parliament’s performance since 2011 casts a repulsive shadow on its supposed representation of the people’s interests.
Since the start of this new administration, the opposition-led parliament has been hurting Guyana. How so? The opposition-led parliament practices parliamentary Caesarism and hostage-holding tactics; partisanship has become a staple diet; the opposition’s death wish for Amaila is alive and well, and the crusade against Amaila remains in full swing; the opposition has inserted question marks over the Cheddi Jagan International Airport expansion project, the Marriott Hotel project, and the Specialist Hospital project, among other physical infrastructure projects; the opposition’s slow-down tactic on progressive development is an enduring reality through the notorious budget cuts; and more recently, the opposition-led parliament’s intent to make Guyana a blacklisted country by the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF).
The power of the numbers in parliament is necessary, but not sufficient to determine the national utility of a game-changing project; and perhaps, the PPP/C should enable the Guyanese people and not parliament to determine the efficacy of these projects.
The opposition-led parliament’s political outcomes are beginning to emerge as negatives in the form of a slow-down of both national development and democratic consolidation. These political outcomes are inevitable, but not surprising in a situation where, apparently, parliament’s intent is to block the government’s policy agenda. And democratization and development will further decelerate because the idea of political compromises, a critical standard in Guyana’s politics, is not on the political radar.
Given that the elected government has a mandate from the people to execute its agenda, and inasmuch as the opposition has to oversee the proceedings of this execution, the onus on effecting political compromises rests with the opposition. Within a democratic context, most of what a government does would be within the norms of acceptability; and where there are some significant deviations from such normative behaviours, the opposition’s intervention becomes critical. And I am not suggesting that the opposition’s role in Guyana is limited to intervening on governmental deviations. But the opposition must acknowledge that the government is the democratically-elected government that received the people’s assent to govern, in the same way that the opposition is the elected opposition. Simply put, the opposition is not the government, and the government is not the opposition.
Let me refer to what I wrote two weeks ago, pointing out the fallacy of the U.S. opposition Republican Party’s action, thusly: “…Most recently, the world saw the unconscionable behavior of the House of Representatives’ Republicans demanding a defunding of the Affordable Care Act and threatened a shutdown of government if their demand was not met. The House Republicans did shut down the government by virtue of their majority in the House of Representatives.
“…There indeed was a 16-day shutdown of the U.S. federal government which resulted in placing about one million workers on unpaid mandatory leave. In the end, even fellow moderate House Republicans joined with Democrats to end the shutdown, after noting vast public opinion against the shutdown and House Republicans’ unconscionable behaviors. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Republican Party was apportioned considerable blame during the shutdown and that the Party had the lowest scores in 20 years. It is not hard to figure out that the the House Republicans’ unconscionable behavior was the reason for this loss of populous support…”
The U.S. opposition Republican Party had the majority of votes in the House of Representatives in Congress, but it had to withdraw its action of shutting down the Obama-led government. It is clear that the power of numbers is not enough to secure political victory. In the end, the people decide, as they recently did against the opposition Republican Party.
What are required as useful outcomes for the people are political accountability and good quality government and opposition. The first phase in achieving this goal is that both government and opposition have to accept the parameters and limitations of their responsibilities. Only in this way would political trust emerge.

(By Dr. Prem Misir)