THE nature of politics, in or out of a coalition, is influenced by people’s thinking and behaviour. Some rightly see politics as serving the people while others see it as opportunity to pursue self-interests.
Our present coalition scenario operates within the Proportional Representation (PR) system, whereby an alliance is formed before going to the polls. Where political parties and groups come together, and voting also influenced by race, the representation of each, outside of the known established majority, is best gauged by analyses of Statements of Poll (SoP) over the several elections.
In forming a coalition, agreement is between and among political parties and groupings, and it is always better in framing such that attention is given to the constitution and laws of the country, which will impact it. The current APNU+AFC coalition government brought hope to the society that it will be promoting the cause and interest not only of its constituents, but of all. Many share the view that irrespective of the coalition’s missteps, better days are ahead under its leadership.
The Saturday meeting between President David Granger and the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) could be seen as an effort by both sides to make the coalition work. Obviously, there would have been talks on the lines of demarcation and channels of communication which seem to be of concern to the latter. The Alliance For Change (AFC) earlier this year also expressed concern about the need for revisiting the Cummingsburg Accord among other issues.
When A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) coalition was put together, it was made to understand there would have been a Leadership Council meeting periodically to discuss matters of interest to the group. It was felt that the structure was necessary for deliberation and collective agreement. Whether it was established and/or not working is not known, though its concept is worthwhile, given competing interests and foci, and the importance of prioritising and responding to national issues and concerns.
The Accord between the APNU and the AFC, which led to the APNU+AFC contesting the 2015 General and Regional Elections, ensconced in the agreement was that the chairmanship of Cabinet will be held by the prime minister, who is the AFC’s candidate. In the wheeling and dealing, this specific issue conflicts with constitutional obligations.

As the total coalition is being examined, what seems to be a critical moment, it needs to be reinforced that while there may be an understanding between and among the parties and groups as to the sharing of ministerial positions, the authority to appoint a team is vested in the President.

Each group needs to be aware and appreciative that constitutional Executive authority in the domain of the President who is aided by a team in which he/she vests confidence to help in the discharge of his/her duties.  At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the public and those within the coalition will express their opinions on decisions made,of which the President has to be mindful .

Addressing public concern about the reassigning of Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine from Minister of Education to Minister of Public Service having responsibility for the Public Service, indicates retained public interest in the coalition. Some see it as impending failure, others are concerned if the re-assignment will rip asunder the relationship and by extension the ability to govern as a cohesive unit. There is another section is society that is concerned about information as to the state of Dr. Roopnaraine’s health and whether he can carry on in a ministerial portfolio.

A coalition government is never easy to navigate and its survival as a government is dependent on continuous consultation between and among those involved, and the integrity each brings to bear. The truth be told, from the time elections were won in 2015, where smaller groups began claiming credit for the victory,  this telegraphed a level of hubris in that it ignored were it not for the major group, victory would have eluded all. This attitude has not dissipated, but rather has been cemented.  At the same time there is also a perception that the big party wants to dominate the small ones.

What too cannot be ignored is that some within the coalition have no numerical strength or have lost votes over the period, according to the SOPs.  A flipside of coalition politics in our PR system is that it allows some to benefit from the success of the others.  With all that having been said, it cannot be ignored that hubris — irrespective of size — is not the best approach in keeping any coalition alive and working in the interest of all the people.