The disappointment lies in the reality that the prevailing political mood between government and opposition remains largely as it was when the ceremonial opening took place following last November’s general election. It is one of disunity and confrontation when compromise seems quite essential. President Donald Ramotar had appealed for “consensus and compromise” in addressing the opening of the 10th Parliament, following the results of the elections at which the incumbent People’s Progressive Party/Civic retained the presidency and government but with a loss, for the first time, of its parliamentary majority by one seat in the 65-member National Assembly.
In the months that followed the November poll, A Partnership for National Unity (largely the new face of the old PNCR), and the Alliance For Change (AFC) were to restructure their anti-government strategy that was forged for the elections campaign.
The clearest manifestation of a more defined working alliance came in the election of a Speaker and Deputy Speaker when, contrary to established norms in a parliamentary democracy, APNU and AFC voted to take both positions. It was a surprising display of arrogance that’s currently revealing some disturbing manifestations in the abuse of a one-seat parliamentary majority.
For the very first time in the parliamentary history of Guyana, the serving leader of a political party was chosen — and by a mere one-vote majority — as Speaker. The prize went to the then AFC chairman, Raphael Trotman, in preference to the former long-term Speaker and respected senior counsel, Ralph Ramkarran (PPP’s candidate). APNU’s Deborah Backer was chosen as Deputy Speaker.
That scenario, subsequently supported by feisty rhetoric — across the parliament chamber — was to worsen, with warnings and actions from even the Speaker himself. The APNU/AFC coalition opted to dominate all major parliamentary committees, and to push ahead with opposition-initiated motions and draft legislation.
‘Tek all’ politics
The end result was the reinforcement of non-cooperation and confrontation, instead of what’s fundamental for Guyana’s social and economic progress: A consensus-building political culture.
Let it be noted that while the opposition initially blundered by their contemptuous “tek-all” politics for Speaker and Deputy Speaker, as well as to dominate all major committees of parliament, the government, for its part, has allowed itself to be provoked into virtual tit-for-tat rhetoric that serves to harden positions on both sides.
If, as it seems, the APNU/AFC anti-government coalition is increasingly exposing its evident inability, or unwillingness, to manage a one-seat majority for improved governance in a climate of stability, then they should be mindful of growing concerns about likely political recklessness if they manage to secure a decisive majority at a likely snap general election — even before the PPPC’s mid-term.
For its part, President Ramotar’s administration should consider making a critical assessment of the relevance of recurring pugilistic outbursts from some of its key spokespersons when countering the more threatening, reckless rhetoric from the opposition, in particular leading personalities of the minority AFC.
Truth is, in the absence of “consensus and compromise”, which the President had reassuringly alluded to when he addressed the first session of the 10th Parliament, there is today far too much confrontational politicking taking place, which could have much negative consequences for Guyana unless serious bi-partisan approaches are pursued.
Bad week for APNU/AFC
Posing a particular hurdle for this desirable development is the politics currently being played out on the streets — whether in Linden, Agricola, Georgetown, or at East Coast villages — by both the AFC and APNU.
The more so, however, by the AFC as it copes with its own apparent internal competitive leadership challenges in strategizing to weaken APNU (more correctly, the PNCR) in once traditional strongholds, including Linden.
The threatened “peaceful” mass protests against the government, as voiced first by the AFC’s leadership, have, thankfully, not materialised. But there have been some tragic consequences, beyond Linden and Agricola, to the partisan, hate-driven politics that need to be objectively assessed by ALL the parliamentary parties.
The PNCR in particular should perhaps be quite vigilant as it stands to lose more ultimately when, according to well-placed sources, it was not the initiator of some of the more dangerous extra-parliamentary anti-government, anti-police politicking that have recently been rocking otherwise peaceful communities in this nation.
In this context, it remains relevant to recall that today’s APNU/PNCR leader, David Granger, was pressured into somersaulting on an agreement reached with President Ramotar on the then proposed phased hike in electricity tariff for Linden consumers BEFORE the eruption of violence, shooting deaths, spreading acts of arson, beatings and robberies.
Lindeners and Guyanese of all ethnicities and political persuasions know what followed, and the current hearings by a distinguished five-member Commission of Enquiry, are providing very useful information.
Last week’s hearings could not have been a good one for the combined APNU/AFC parliamentary alliance. Not after the evidence provided by the UK’s ballistics expert that the bullets which killed the three Linden protesters did NOT come from police guns.
Nor was the Commission ready to call Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee who had been accused by the AFC and its leading officials in particular, of having given “instructions” to the police on duty at Linden on that tragic July 18 day when three protesters were killed.
