THE Alliance for Change (AFC) has been in the news quite a lot in recent times. This is not surprising, as that party has become the standard by which Third Parties are measured in our traditionally two-party system. While some criticisms of the AFC are justified, many of them are uninformed, petty and laden with overt political calculations.

Some critics have gone as far as declaring the party dead; a most nonsensical formulation. Given their potential to disturb settled notions of party politics in Guyana, there has always been a difficulty on how to analyse Third Parties. The need to expand the scope of analysis has often proven too taxing for analysts and commentators, especially those with overt and covert political agendas.

This publication holds no brief for the AFC. But in the interest of accuracy and objectivity, we are moved to offer what we consider a more nuanced perspective on the party. We are sure when a proper history of this era is written, the AFC’ s presence would loom large. The historians would no doubt unearth the mistakes made by the party; its weaknesses would be put in proper perspective. No political party is faultless or blameless; it is the nature of politics and political behaviour. But, ultimately, errors must be balanced with achievements; a party must be judged within the context of its time and place in history.

The AFC is not a run-of-the-mill Third Party. While scores of Third Parties have emerged since self-government in the early 1950s, the AFC is one of three that has managed any meaningful mass impact and sustainability; the other two being the UF and WPA. This observation should not be discounted, for, if Third Parties survive in a polarised environment, it suggests that they occupy political space that the large parties have not been able to monopolise.

Credit must be given to the AFC for having the capacity to seize the moment at the time of its formation in 2005. It was a period of doubt and stress as the PPP government of the day took Guyana to unprecedented levels of State decay. Large sections of the society across ethnic lines had become alienated from the politics of fear, criminalisation of the State, nepotism, paramountcy of the party and ethnic domination. As is normal in such extreme situations, some citizens tend to look past the established parties for answers. And in a critical convergence of time and place, the AFC emerged as a new light in the darkness that the PPP had brought upon the country.

The AFC did what only the UF was able to do before it. Emerging as an electoral party, within a year, it became a significant parliamentary presence. Then in 2011, it garnered ten per cent of the popular vote to become the balance between the two large parties. The AFC in effect ousted the PPP from its previously secured position of electoral dominance by the party’s unprecedented electoral appeal to sections of the PPP constituency.

The party then made the crucial decision to use its influence and relative electoral strength to broaden the partnership begun with the formation of the APNU in 2011, and in the process toppled the dreaded PPP regime. It is this act by the party that is today being severely criticised by its detractors. These detractors feel that the AFC should have remained neutral and not join either of the two established parties. But people do not vote for parties to remain in opposition perpetually; they want their parties to govern. This was the dilemma the AFC faced.

So, the party’s movement towards the APNU was dictated by the political motion of the time. It could not join the marauding PPP, or facilitate its survival in office by remaining neutral. What is not being said is that the AFC joined a coalition of parties rather than a single party. It was a patriotic choice by the party to help disentangle the country from the clutches of governmental depravity. Rather than just concentrating on who the AFC joined, the critics should pay even more attention to what the party saved Guyana from. One-sided analysis is often the stuff of the con-artists or the uninformed.

The critics of the AFC have one thing in common: They want to weaken the Coalition. Weakening the Coalition could have one outcome: Opening the door for the return of the PPP. If the AFC is declared a dead party or is swallowed up by the PNC and the other parties in the Coalition are deemed ineffectual, then the opposition would in effect be running against the PNC. For obvious devious reasons, this is the not- so-hidden desire of the AFC’s critics.

The last time we checked, the AFC is alive. The Coalition is alive. All parties have their moments of difficulties, and the AFC must weather the gathering storm. In the end, it is Guyana that matters more; the party is the vessel through which people strive for betterment for all. The AFC must be lauded for seeing the larger picture, and being guided by it. Certainly, mistakes were made, and opportunities were missed, but in the final analysis, it is the larger picture that matters.