THE NEW coalition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) really was conceived and prematurely delivered in confusion; and now, we see this confusion reigning supreme at the House of APNU.
In the initial phase of this election season, the essence and being of APNU represented confusion. There was confusion because people were uncertain about what the real APNU was. Some thought that APNU was ‘APNU’. Others viewed APNU as the pseudonym for the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR).
On another front, people were unsure as to whether APNU was a genuine coalition, because, excepting the PNCR, the other parties have no constituency; and now, APNU remains a shell coalition. The fact of the matter is that these small parties presented an unconvincing voting record. Here is an illustration:
The Working People’s Alliance (WPA) received 6,086 votes in 1992, declining to 4,783 votes in 1997; the WPA teamed up with Guyana Action Party (GAP) in the 2001 national elections to receive only 9,451 votes. GAP coalesced with ROAR in the 2006 national elections where they received only 4,588 votes. The NFA (assuming it is the same as the current NFA) received 417 votes in the 2001 national elections. Clearly, these parties’ electoral utility may fetch a zero probability at the impending national election.

And the persisting confusion engulfing APNU shows no signs of dissipating. The latest episode in the saga of APNU confusion is the likely coup d’état at the House of APNU. APNU’s first caretaker was the PNCR, notwithstanding the limited presence of that Party’s top dogs; in any event, the PNCR’s leadership presence at APNU is rapidly fading, and that includes the ‘Brigadier’ presidential candidate’s electoral chances.
Apparently, the WPA has usurped the PNCR’s dominance of APNU, presenting itself as the new caretaker. Dr. Rupert Roopnarine, Professor Clive Thomas, and Dr. Maurice Odle are not merely members of the WPA; they are WPA. Oops, there is Dr. David Hinds, too.  Even with the PNCR at the helm of APNU, APNU was a shell coalition; and now, with the WPA possibly at the controls, a party without a constituency, as the new caretakers, APNU most certainly would have now evolved into something worse than a shell, with predictably dismal electoral prospects.
And in all of this, is the Brigadier still the presidential candidate? Some time ago, I spoke of psychological confusion among the PNCR’s supporters during the initial phase of APNU,because they were confused as to whether APNU is PNCR or PNCR is APNU. Nevertheless, today, the WPA could have remarkably diluted PNCR’s supporters’ confusion vis-à-vis its take-over of the House of APNU; enabling the PNCR to regain its composure as the PNCR; nevertheless, it may be too late for any PNCR ‘comeback’ in this 2011 election, as at this time, there is no ‘ballot’ talk on the ‘palm tree’. 
Nonetheless, let us not draw any definitive conclusions on this matter as of now; as there are PNCR’s supporters who still long to see the PNCR as an electoral contestant. 
And then there is the question of ideological disparities among coalition partners. Generally, sharp ideological differences weaken coalitions; and the dominant party in the coalition normally projects its ideological dominance on its coalition partners. And indeed, APNU is beset with ideological disparities, real or unreal. Perhaps, there was the initial PNCR ideological thrust while the PNCR was the perceived APNU caretaker; and now, the perceived demise of the PNCR’s caretaker role undoubtedly will dilute its ideological hold on APNU. Without demur, APNU remains a weak electoral force in the face of this perceived coup d’état.
Amazingly, the PNCR allowed the WPA, a shell party, that is, a party without a constituency, to thrust itself on to the front stage, delivering front-stage behaviours that will dwarf the other parties’ presence, including that of the PNCR. Under these conditions, it is highly probable to see the beginnings of sharp discord between the other parties and the WPA vis-à-vis their parties’ history, parties’ image, and parties’ prior experience with power; in this latter case, only the PNCR tasted political power, albeit fraudulently.