ONE of the things that distinguishes the current government from its main competitor for office is its plural identity. The government is a Coalition of six political parties with each bringing to the partnership its particular and peculiar strengths.

We feel that our diverse society deserves a government that reflects that ethnic and political reality. Such a political force is better able to appeal to a wider cross section of the country than a one-party government that is grounded in a single demographic.

From the 1960s to the present, political parties, scholars and commentators have contended that the best form of government for Guyana must be one that is grounded in a power-sharing arrangement. However, despite rhetoric to that effect, there was no actual concrete manifestation of power-sharing or shared governance until the birth of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) which contested the 2011 elections. When the APNU joined with the Alliance for Change (AFC) to topple the PPP from the presidency in 2015, it became the first truly multi-party government in Guyana’s history.

Although the APNU+AFC government is not a full-fledged national government, it comes closest to that ideal. The constituent parties have been forced to contain their partisan interests to ensure the survival of the collective. Given the differing political orientation of the three main parties in the government, the Coalition should be commended for surviving the inherent challenges. It is not that there have not been difficulties, but in the final analysis, they managed to stay together even in the face of a defection from one of the parties that caused the passage of a No-Confidence Vote. It is obvious that the ministers have developed a healthy working relationship which is key to an effective partnership.
There can be no doubt that managing a coalition is a complex undertaking, especially when in addition to their differing orientations, the parties’ electoral strengths are uneven. Larger parties tend to logically look to exert the most influence on the process and smaller parties seek to increase their clout. In the case of the current coalition, one of the smaller parties was able to strike an accord that guaranteed it a substantial portion of parliamentary and cabinet seats. In the end, leadership of the collective was pivotal to its survival. In that regard, President Granger should be applauded for his astute leadership.

Now that they have decided to again face the polls as a Coalition, the parties are in the process of hammering out a new pact in the form of a revised Cummingsburg Accord between the APNU and the AFC. There is also talk of upgrading the APNU Charter that governs relations among the APNU parties. According to reports, all the parties have already signed on to the coalition’s “Core Principles.” That is indeed good news for those who support coalition politics.

But the more difficult task lies ahead as the parties negotiate how power, both tangible and intangible, would be distributed after the polls. Will there be any substantial change in the Cummingsburg Accord? Will the AFC manage to hold the APNU to the 60-40 formulae enshrined in the previous accord?. Besides, the issue of the Prime Minster slot and whether the smaller parties in the APNU, particularly the WPA, seek more representation in the National Assembly and the Cabinet as mentioned by the latter at a news conference on Friday?

The answer to these and other related questions would be made known in the not too distant future. Supporters of the Coalition would be hoping that the leaders approach the negotiations with the same maturity that informed their conduct during the first term in office. There is perhaps more need for more give and take than was needed in 2015. Whatever the outcome, we wish them well. As the country approaches the new dispensation as a ‘Petrostate’, we feel that it would be better served by a government grounded in compromise and consensus than one grounded in acrimony and domination.