SOME may see it as Black Friday; others as Good Friday. But on Friday, December 21, 2018, a duly elected government was defeated on a vote of no- confidence that was tabled by the opposition.
The motion was tabled by the People’s Progressive Party (PPP/C) which has 32 MPs in Guyana’s 65-seat National Assembly, as against 33 MPs on the APNU+AFC Coalition’s government benches.

Passage of the motion required a majority of all elected members of the House which, in effect, translated to 33 MPs. On the surface, without the requisite majority, the opposition had no prospect of success. But when the vote was taken, a Government MP voted with the opposition. That vote made history, as this is the first time that a government has to resign from office upon the approval of a no-confidence vote.

CONSCIENCE VOTE
The MP claimed that he was exercising a conscience vote, against which the government’s Chief Whip had advised before and on the day that the matter came up for debate. It is felt that if indeed it was a conscience vote, then the MP could have abstained – instead of voting with the opposition to defeat his own government.

Also, the government has had suspicions that one of its male MPs had been compromised, but it was unable to identify or recall him before the crucial debate. It is in this context that the APNU+AFC government would have reasons for claiming that it has been betrayed, not defeated.

While two of the privately owned newspapers yesterday carried identical headlines, GOV’T FALLS”, the state-owned newspaper chose a tabloid-type banner, “`JUDAS’ AT CHRISTMAS”, which I found to be distasteful. It carried a huge photo of the rogue MP, identifying him as Charrandas Persaud, who held a seat on behalf of the Alliance For Change (AFC), the coalition’s junior partner. The MP has since been expelled for voting against the party’s line, and going against the Party List from which his name had been extracted after the 2015 polls.

Nothing that he has said would justify casting his vote, which he has held in trust for those who supported his party, against his own government. Absenting from the Sitting or abstaining from the vote could have conveyed his grievances, none of which he mentioned before or on the day of the debate when he came to the sitting clothed in the coalition’s yellow and green colours.

MANDATE BETRAYED
The 206,000 voters who elected the APNU+AFC in 2015, would justifiably be enraged with the action of the MP, and would feel that he has betrayed the mandate given him to faithfully represent the coalition in the National Assembly. But the rage has to be tempered by the coalition’s own commitment to the norms of parliamentary democracy, which it has helped to restore.

As I noted after the vote, “Guyanese must understand that the democratic process is sometimes unpredictable. You may have results that are not planned for and, like cricket, democracy could be a game of great uncertainty. But the outcome has to be accepted.
“It may be a surprise to some, it may be a shock to others; it may be welcomed by some, and others may rejoice over the results. But that is how democracy works.”

Friday’s vote is no doubt an early eye-opener for the coalition. It would wake up to the reality that a one-seat majority is just not enough in a society where ethnic identification could trump political loyalty. It is also a serious set-back at a time when a government is overcoming inherited socio-economic problems and trying to deliver as against mounting expectations. If it has learned anything, it is that it must hit the electoral trail to console and motivate its supporters; and to energise them to re-elect the coalition with a bigger majority.

PARLIAMENT PROROGUED
The PPP had experienced its own dose of no-confidence, from which it ran in 2014, only to fall on its own sword. Rather than debating the no-confidence motion that was tabled by the AFC, the then Ramotar government cowardly prorogued parliament. It opted for premature elections, which it lost to the coalition. That was the first time that a no-confidence motion has been moved against any government in Guyana.

Unlike 2018, the 2014 motion was triggered by flagrant violation of the republic’s Constitution and breaches of fiscal laws, at a time when the PPP was swamped in “pervasive corruption” and haunted by allegations of death squads, gang-related extra-judicial killings and mass murders.

Several mega projects were shrouded by corruption, such as the sale of the Sanata Texile Mill to, and creation of an investment bonanza in, the Berbice River Bridge for friends; the distribution of radio/television licences to party cronies and posh house-lots to government elites; the investment of NIS funds held mostly for sugar workers in the Clico ponsi-scheme; and the scandal associated with waste of monies on the Skeldon sugar factory, the Amaila road project, the still-born specialty hospital and the Enmore Sugar Plant, to mention just a few.

By that time the PPP government had also raided several special billion-dollar accounts into which public monies had been placed and were never transferred to the Consolidated Fund. Those included the Petro Caribe Fund; the Lotto Fund; GGMC Fund, Wild Life Fund, etc.
When the PPP refused to debate the 2014 no confidence motion, it cast a blemish on our system of parliamentary democracy, and the electorate punished the former government at the polls.

ELECTIONS & DIALOGUE
This is not the case today. The APNU+AFC government did not hide or run from the opposition motion. It did not interrupt or cancel the debate. The motion was fully ventilated in the National Assembly. The rest is now history.

Guyana is heading into new elections in 2019, given an indication by the Elections Commission that it is ready. The constitution provides that these elections should be held within 90 days, but this period may be extended with the consent of the parliamentary parties.

In the interregnum, this unprecedented situation might see openings for political dialogue as never hitherto witnessed in contemporary Guyanese history. Both sides would hopefully see that the prospects for forging working relations in the national interest are far more attractive than stand-offs, conflicts and confrontation.

It is commendable that the parliamentary debacle did not flow over into the wider multi-ethnic society, and that our Guyanese people continue to enjoy the joyous Christmas season without social disruptions
This speaks to the maturity of our young but vibrant democracy.