AFC & APNU demanding their pound of flesh with no-confidence motion

PULL QUOTE: “But even as the AFC awaits the impending parliamentary turmoil to win the day on this motion, its no-confidence proposal is akin to Shylock’s demand for a pound of flesh from Antonio; Shylock’s motive for demanding this pound of flesh had to do with Antonio’s capacity to lower the interest rate in Venice with his “loose-money” strategy”
IT seems naïve for the AFC to table a no-confidence motion to the Clerk of the National Assembly, Sherlock Issacs on August 7, 2014, and then have to wait well over two months to immerse parliamentarians in some debate on the matter; when all this could be done in a more timely fashion if the AFC’s proposer through the Speaker had requested an extraordinary sitting of the National Assembly. 

The AFC chose to wait out the more than two months for the usual parliamentary shout-outs. This delay casts a shadow on the urgency and significance of the now infamous ‘no-confidence’ proposal because if the AFC really sees the proposal as important and bestowed with at least a pound of credible flesh, then it would have been the loudest cheerleader to make this happen imminently.
But even as the AFC awaits the impending parliamentary turmoil to win the day on this motion, its no-confidence proposal is akin to Shylock’s demand for a pound of flesh from Antonio; Shylock’s motive for demanding this pound of flesh had to do with Antonio’s capacity to lower the interest rate in Venice with his “loose-money” strategy (1).
The Jewish moneylender Shylock lost money so long as Antonio kept the interest rate down; and Antonio did it for the good of those who needed to borrow money at the lowest interest rate. The AFC with its counterpart APNU gradually would have negligible electoral appeal (paralleling how Shylock lost money) so long as the PPP/C Government’s capital development programmes remain viable and sustainable for ordinary people in Guyana (paralleling how Antonio helped ordinary people to borrow money cheaply).
But despite APNU/AFC’s attempts at frustrating the Government’s capital programmes, there are still a thousand points of developmental lights in Guyana. And so the AFC/APNU’s failure to curb the Government’s development programme and to reduce its popular support has led to their introduction of a new ploy to Guyanese, the no-confidence motion. Both AFC and APNU see the no-confidence proposal as a way of getting out of the electoral ghetto.
And just as Shylock demanded a pound of flesh to keep Antonio out of the picture of money lending, similarly the AFC and APNU are digging in their heels to demand their pound of flesh from the PPP/C Government, that pound of flesh being the loathsome no-confidence motion. Indeed, the intent of the AFC/APNU’s no-confidence proposal is to bring the PPP/C Government to its knees and out of office.
As things stand, the AFC remains ambivalent over its own ‘no-confidence’ charade by virtue of the more than two-month wait to make the motion active in Parliament. And then there is the AFC’s Opposition sidekick APNU which is uncertain as to its next move, having thrown its belated and hesitant support behind the AFC. APNU’s announcement of support for the motion happened just after the PNC/R’s 18th Biennial Congress last month, and that announcement was an attempt to draw little attention to the chaos that erupted at the Congress. These behaviours of the AFC and APNU are hallmarks of weak Opposition parties fighting for political survival.
The AFC and APNU are not your classical opposition, as there is a disconnect between AFC/APNU as the Opposition and the PPP/C as the Government; a classical opposition opposes, presents alternative policies to those of the government, and accepts the right of the government to govern (2). In fact, Guyana possibly has an opposition of principle (2) where the Opposition opposes the Government and rejects its legitimacy as a government. And so, the combined Opposition AFC/APNU now uses the no-confidence proposal to tear away at the PPP/C Government’s democratic legitimacy.
By the way, Shylock, a Jew, converted to Christianity at the end of the ‘Merchant of Venice’ play; perhaps in due course, there may be some conversions from the combined Opposition APNU/AFC to the PPP/C Party.

References:
1. Cooper JR. Shylock’s Humanity. Shakespeare Quarterly. 1970:117-24.
2. Kirchheimer O. The waning of opposition in parliamentary regimes. Social Research. 1957:127-56.
Written By Dr. Prem Misir

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.