PRESIDENT David Granger’s recent pronouncements on the uncooperative attitude of the opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP) with respect to its role in the important affairs of the nation should come as no surprise. In a rather frank and candid assessment of this party’s parliamentary conduct since the birth of his coalition government, President Granger has catalogued many instances of refusal of cooperation, describing such a stance as “dysfunctional.”
These examples of what are clearly a PPP political position of decided non-cooperation, range from absence from the President’s addresses to Parliament; refusal to participate in national budget consultations or sending a junior to these important discussions, to the outright refusal of some regional chairmen to even receive the President. This is a basic courtesy that is expected of such high- ranking regional officials regardless of party affiliation, whenever the chief executive and other members are on official visits to any region.
The role of a political opposition in a democratic political system is to primarily offer itself as an alternative to the incumbent government. In this endeavour, it is expected to offer constructive criticisms on national policies, thereby causing the executive to account for its stewardship. This explains why the opposition is often referred to as the “shadow” government, since in its functioning role, it allots its leading members counterpart positions with regard to cabinet ministerial positions, in tracking the incumbent government’s performance.
However, despite this perfectly official position, there is the well-known traditional fact of the opposition being a practitioner of the politics of No. It is seen as part of the practice of adversarial, or rather grudge, politics, where no quarter is asked or given by either side. Former president, and now current leader of the opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo, is on record as saying that in this milieu, the aim is to make the other side look bad.
But surely, what the opposition PPP has been doing consistently in this 11th Parliament, is beyond the spectrum of adversarial politics: it has been an orchestrated strategy of trying to de-emphasise the President David Granger administration, by parliamentary boycotts, aimed not only at President Granger’s presence when delivering his government’s legislative agenda, but also walkouts against the person of the Honourable Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo, on his responses to opposition Members of Parliament during budget debates.
Another example of this behaviour was the party’s absence from what could be described as the initial one-day conference on national cohesion, and the boycott of a social cohesion concert held on Main Street. This has to be seen in this culture of ‘No Politics.’ In fact, it is a continuation of a PPP opposition strategy of non-participation in the nation’s business, under the guise of allegations of being cheated at the May 11, 2015 polls. But this response had generally been anticipated, given the many prior complaints that had been levelled against the Guyana Elections Commission. After all, this was a party that had been in power for 23 years until it lost its parliamentary majority in 2011 and finally the presidency via a coalition in May, 2015.
But even defeat of a government, and its relegation to the opposition benches, does not mean it cannot continue to play its proper role in the affairs of a nation — albeit a constructive one — especially Guyana that has had such a turbulent history as reflected in the ethnic tensions that have bedevilled our nation for the past 60 years, and which continue to be a serious challenge to social cohesion.
We recall President Granger in his historic swearing-in address, emphasising that he will be President for all Guyanese, and is prepared to work with the parliamentary opposition party, towards the goal of national unity and inclusivity. He was under no illusion for acknowledging after his ascension to the presidency that the margin of his coalition’s victory was very narrow and what this meant for Guyana in terms of the 49 percent of voters that supported the defeated opposition party. He emphasised that the latter scenario was a good point at which to commence the pursuit of inclusionary democracy. And this has been his appeal continuously to an opposition party, the mantra of which is designedly divisive in nature, posing a threat to the national well-being of the nation.
It explains why as an opposition party, the PPP has been nominated to many of the state boards, but has refused to accept such appointments. Where is the political intelligence in refusing such opportunities to influence national debate?
Let us all be reminded about the nature of the Office of Leader of the Opposition and its parliamentary members: that it is a constitutional office with defined duties and responsibilities, that the holders are expected to be cognizant of and carry out in a responsible manner. Moreover, they are salaried appointments with allowances. This means that the leader and party are expected to fulfil their constitutional duty as an intelligent partner in national affairs, by giving enlightened leadership to their constituents, not by preaching the dangerous dogma of ethnic division, thus sowing the seeds of discord.