The PPP/C minority government more the likely risk taker than the Opposition – revised

By Dr. Prem Misir

ELECTION frenzy is sweeping Guyana, as the country awaits the fate of the anticipated no-confidence motion in Parliament in October 2014. The Opposition with a one-seat majority in Parliament could win the no-confidence motion. And the election frenzy is gaining increasing momentum, as there is possibility of the President’s announcement of a snap election.The backdrop to the political situation is that since 2011, there has been a spanking new political dispensation in Guyana, comprising a minority government (PPP/C) and an Opposition-controlled APNU and AFC Parliament.
As the election fever rolls on, the usual election agenda items as talking points at this time are, among others, the invocation of constitutional reforms, delving into the innermost recesses into what political system is best for Guyana, the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM) customary defensiveness of its voters’ lists, the typical overstated disparagements of the Government’s performance, the Government’s promotion of ethnic marginalisation and exclusion, corruption, the reappearance of some media houses as the new Opposition.
These agenda items represent important talking points at election times, and the Guyanese electorate should have more of these. But there also should be talk about not only the Government, but the Opposition, too. Nevertheless, given that the Government’s performance is public knowledge, what is substantively missing are the Opposition Parties’ agenda items on what each will do for the poor and vulnerable, should it gain political power.

“And so, as the election frenzy lingers and the possibility of an election becomes real, it should not be surprising that the PPP/C minority Government and the Opposition may continuously look for opportunities to place their political status on firm foundations; and now each day, both Government and Opposition would be calculating how far to take their engagement.”

So far, the Opposition has a policy, a policy merely to win an election, but not preferred policies for the people’s welfare (1). And that Opposition’s policy to win the next election is to strategically block the Government’s capital projects: the Cheddi Jagan Airport Modernisation Project, Ogle Aerodrome assistance, Civil Aviation equipment and Hinterland/Coastal Airstrips, the specialist hospital, Marriott Hotel, and the Amaila Hydropower Project. The Government’s capital programme would provide enormous gains to the poor and vulnerable.
And so, as the election frenzy lingers and the possibility of an election becomes real, it should not be surprising that the PPP/C minority Government and the Opposition may continuously look for opportunities to place their political status on firm foundations; and now each day, both Government and Opposition would be calculating how far to take their engagement.
Therefore, at least for the PPP/C minority government in the spirit of recouping its electoral losses from the 2011 General and Regional Elections, going to the polls or not going to the polls remains an active dilemma for decision making. Barbara Vis’ study of prospect theory (2) could explain political calculations under risk conditions. These political calculations drive what decisions to make; and such decisions involve risk.
But how do people make decisions under risky conditions? Prospect theory (3) may be applicable here. This theory suggests the following: people make different choices when they have benefits and losses. When people face losses, they accept the risk in making decisions because they want to recoup their losses; when people have benefits/advantages, they are not happy taking risks because they want to hold onto what they already have.
In addition, people generally feel a hurt more when they face losses than when they experience gains. Put another way, ‘losses hurt more than equal gains please’ (4). And the people who are loss averse would tend to avoid change, and so would latch onto the existing state of affairs. And they may very well want to remain with the present situation because with any change, the losses seem greater than the gains (5).
Applying prospect theory to Guyana would suggest the following: the combined Opposition (APNU and AFC) with a one-seat majority in parliament may see this majority as an advantage/benefit, and so may not be comfortable to change its situation; the Opposition has another option for political decision making; this option involves a coalition of APNU and AFC prior to any national and regional election; nevertheless, the combined Opposition may experience risk-aversion, whereby it wants to hold onto what it has. On the other hand, the PPP/C minority Government may be more likely to take the risk of trying to recoup its electoral losses. According to prospect theory, people are less likely to take risks when they have advantages/gains than people who face losses. In this situation, the PPP/C is the likely risk taker.
In the case of Guyana, how does prospect theory work in the context of individual voters? In the same way as prospect theory has some applicability to political parties; it also has implications for an individual voter’s political decisions. Would an individual voter turn out to vote in a ‘snap’ election? If this voter is experiencing losses from the last election, then this voter would be more likely to vote at a ‘snap’ election; on the other hand, if a voter experiences benefits or gains from the last election, then that voter may be less enthused to vote at a ‘snap’ election. In this situation, parties may have to ‘sus’ out what the losses and the gains mean for an individual voter.
For the PPP/C minority Government to recoup its electoral losses at some future election, it, therefore, has to win over those voters who believe that they are enjoying advantages/benefits from the previous election. So while the PPP/C minority Government may more likely be a risk taker at summoning a national poll, it also has to convince those voters to change political preferences in a situation where they feel they have benefits/advantages accruing from the last election.

These voters may want to hold onto what they already have. And, indeed, there is that option of APNU/AFC coalition, where with their gains they would tend to avoid risks, and so they may want to leave things as they are. But their supporters with fewer gains than the APNU/AFC Parties from the last election may be less risk-averse and, therefore, may influence APNU/AFC toward a coalition. Nonetheless, people generally tend to avoid risks, especially in politics. But, indeed, there are calculated risks.

1. Dorn JA, Hanke SH, Walters AA. The Revolution in Development Economics: Cato Institute; 1998.
2. Vis B. Prospect theory and political decision making. Political Studies Review. 2011;9(3):334-43.
3. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society. 1979:263-91.
4. McDermott R. Prospect theory in political science: Gains and losses from the first decade. Political Psychology. 2004;25(2):289-312.
5. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

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.