Dear Editor
WHAT is now the historical coalition government of the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change(APNU+AFC) coming into office was to usher in a new dispensation of the type of politics which has become the barometer as to how well this nation understood the dynamics of national politics, especially the brand that is intended to shape a new society in its thinking and understanding of itself as striving for cohesion, and all its attendant attributes.

The revelation since 2015 has been instructive as to the mindset– honest or not– as to the expectations of a coming together of different political groupings of persons in the context of our national politics, given its well-known history of race, and what such a combination should be able to achieve in such a highly challenged milieu as Guyana.

Out of such an observance, there has been an endurable theme which is constant for its deliberate portrayal of coalition politics, in our peculiar context, as one where the junior partner had been expected to put a brake on the political behavioral instincts of its bigger coalition colleague; with this leading to daily political fights and public political blood-letting. This was, and still is, a mantra of a particular collective with vested interests, which includes a significant political segment that has a serious grudge against the AFC that is undoubtedly hateful.

The numerous views of this entire collective, comprising letter writers, drawn from a specific political faction, and its easily identified constituents; friends and cronies alike, political radio broadcasts, televised discussions have been politically convenient in their statements. In fact, their unmistakable view was that the coalition had failed in its mission.
But we hasten to say that it has not, despite the many challenges it has had to confront, inclusive of a collapsed sugar industry which caused a national industrial crisis. Much has been achieved, primarily from a socio-economic standpoint. Of course, better can be done, but of the air of high expectation on the part of the general citizenry, because of the positive things that have so far been done, and are continuing against the background of the well-received 2019 BUDGET, there can be no doubt. Guyanese since 2015, can dare to dream.

The recent no-confidence motion brought against the coalition government, and all that has ensued so far, again brings to the fore a deliberate misinterpretation of constitutional meaning, and an equal misrepresentation of the APNU+AFC response to the post-motion environment.

Without any resort to language of intellectual style, it is the right of any citizen, any institution or organisation that is of the opinion that a matter that had been engaged in the courts, or even otherwise, with which there is dissatisfaction with the latter’s ruling, or otherwise, has the right to seek further remedy. This is allowed, and facilitated in any country where there is democracy.

In more simple terms, even a person sanctioned before the court, and believes that such has been unjust, is advised by counsel to appeal. Surely, from a purely layman’s point of view, this is natural justice.

Absolutely, such a right is also that of any government, as is the case with the current executive challenging the results of the no-confidence motion.

From the deafening cacophony of demands that were made by the many legal minds who took on the self-ascribed role of “constitutional experts,’’ there was indeed a deliberate omission of the legal steps taken by the coalition government, beginning with the presentation of its grounds to the Speaker for review, and a request that he overturn the results of his ruling that the results of the motion had been carried. These are legitimate steps on the part of the government.

The narrative was dishonest, since the government never said that it did not respect the dictates of the constitution, except that it had significant concern for which it was advised by the Speaker to seek a judicial ruling, which decision will be of future guidance to the latter and the National Assembly.

The impression given by those whose actions amounted to a clear attempt to grab power, by means that are gradually being exposed, and supported by those with vested interests, was of a government that had been hell bent on undemocratic methods to remain in office. This has been clearly debunked by the executive and verily understood by a matured nation.

Indeed, the nation has found itself in uncharted territory, brought about by a situation that was contrived in treachery and deception; attempts at creating a false environment of national crises when there is none, and intended to mislead, thus creating social tensions. What has arisen, following the motion, can only be determined by the court, and not by vested-interest attempts, coupled with wild summations and distortions to force the government from office, to which it had been democratically elected.
Regards
Shawn James