By Dr. Prem Misir

IN NINETEEN days’ time or thereabouts, Guyana, for the first time in its political history, would witness a move by an Opposition to remove a Government through a no-confidence motion. The minority partner Alliance For Change (AFC) in the Opposition was the architect of the no-confidence proposal that at the outset had little attractiveness to the Opposition majority partner A Partnership for National Unity (APNU). The first mention in the press of the AFC’s no-confidence motion against the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Government was in late June 2014, with APNU delaying its support for the motion by just over a month until August 5, 2014, and with the motion reaching the Clerk of the National Assembly on August 7, 2014. In fact, APNU claimed at that August 5 meeting that it did not have access to the full draft of the motion as well as any ‘whereas’ clause or clauses, and so it lent its support to the resolve clause of the motion.

“APNU is trailing behind AFC in politicking, and this may very well be the case, will result in APNU losing its grip on the populace. Under these circumstances, the no-confidence proposal faces a range of uncertainties.”

The AFC and APNU having acted as symbiotic twins and constantly locked in a therapeutic alliance in parliament on so many issues would more than likely reach some consensus on something as the infamous no-confidence motion, prior to engaging the public with this matter. The fact that this unwritten tried and proven protocol was not observed may suggest some cracks in the one-seat Opposition majority mirror.
The PNC-dominated APNU is supposed to be the larger force and majority partner in the Opposition in parliament because of its 26 seats contrasted with its other half, the AFC with 7 seats. Notwithstanding these statistics, recently, the PNC descendant APNU remains a second- fiddle player to the AFC on several fronts, including the AFC’s no-confidence motion; perhaps, the AFC is now the better half of APNU.
At the time of the PNC’s 18th Biennial Congress, APNU was not yet on board with the no-confidence motion. On the last day of the Congress, Region 10 Chairman, Sharma Solomon and former PNC General Secretary, Aubrey Norton withdrew their nominations for Leader of the Party and expressed a ‘no-confidence’ in the PNC elections because of their concerns that the process would disenfranchise many delegates.
Then, it was only about a week later after the ruckus at that Congress and seemingly with the intention to create a diversion from the brawl that APNU’s Leader, David Granger summoned his team to discuss the AFC’s no-confidence motion, a motion that surfaced in the press just over a month earlier. APNU demonstrated little passion for the no-confidence vote when it first appeared in the press, as there was not a meeting of the minds between APNU and AFC on this matter, and also a display of little passion by APNU even when it did throw its support for the motion, by virtue of indicating that it did not see a full draft and that there was no ‘whereas’ clause. APNU’s behaviour on this count is surely a half-hearted embrace of AFC’s no-confidence motion.
And now that the infamous PNC’s 18th Biennial Congress has gone but not forgotten and all eyes are firmly fixed on the AFC’s October no-confidence motion, APNU has to now re-assert itself as the Opposition majority partner in parliament, in order not to be overshadowed by AFC. And APNU has taken the first step to regain its dominance in the Opposition. How so? APNU’s Granger gave President Donald Ramotar an ultimatum of September 15, 2014 to announce a date for local government polls. Ramotar did not acquiesce. And so, APNU is now calling for protest actions both nationally and internationally to support the holding of local government elections.
Interestingly, AFC is not a party to APNU’s decision to call for protest actions. Also, note that the no-confidence motion relates to the removal of the Government and the holding of General and Regional Elections. Given this situation, are APNU more concerned now with local government elections and the AFC with General and Regional Elections? And is APNU still supportive and passionate about the AFC’s no-confidence motion?
It seems plausible to contend that APNU, but AFC probably less so, may be satisfied with the benefit/advantage of being a one-seat majority Opposition, and so particularly, APNU, may have a difficulty losing this benefit. In this case, APNU may be experiencing risk-aversion (in my article in Guyana Chronicle on September 7, 2014, refer to implications of prospect theory to Guyana) whereby it wants to hold onto its benefit; and risk-aversion thinking would dissuade APNU for entertaining the thought of General and Regional Elections at this time.
And so, APNU’s risk aversion and re-assertion behaviours signal little passion for AFC’s no-confidence motion because it has greater passion for regaining lost ground within the Opposition and within the populace. In fact, a case of where APNU is trailing behind AFC in politicking, and this may very well be the case, will result in APNU losing its grip on the populace. Under these circumstances, the no-confidence proposal faces a range of uncertainties.