By Ron Cheong
THERE seems to be some confusion in APNU+AFC land. The players are all looking to position and reposition. APNU held a session last week; the stated intent to map a strategy to rescue the country from the PPP/C. Yes, the guys now claiming to be on a rescue mission are the same ones who tried to rig the election, holding the country to ransom for five months.

Their spokesperson charged that the PPP/C is obsessed with political domination, which seems to be much the same “non-consultation” reason that the WPA gave for they themselves withdrawing from APNU.

Meanwhile, the AFC announced that they would be pulling out of the APNU+AFC Coalition at the end of the year. They will be focusing on rebuilding the party and walking on their own two feet — but will be open to coalescing with other parties. And may rejoin APNU at a later date.

Well I’m glad all of that is so very clear now.

THE AFC ARC
The AFC was formed in 2005 on the great promise that they would be the moderating force to racial politics in Guyana. Their three founding members were drawn one each from the PNCR, the PPP/C and the WPA – they were walking their talk. They were going to be the Third Force. They vowed not to join with any of the two existing monoliths the PNCR or the PPP/C. There were great promises of rotating leadership – It was an appealing platform, though it is said the plot was afoot right from the start to split the PPP vote.

In 2006, they split off 28,000 middle of the road PNCR and the PPP/C voters. Still, the PPP/C won that election with a solid 36-seat majority.

In 2011, however, the PNCR rebranded itself as APNU and took back a chunk of the vote that the AFC had previously lured away from them. But while they ceded votes back to the PNCR/APNU, the AFC made significant inroads into the PPP/C vote in 2011. This was their best year with 35,000 votes, good for 10.4 per cent of the vote or seven parliamentary seats. Nevertheless, the PPP/C formed a minority government.

Then comes 2015, the AFC breaks their pledge and runs an on a coalition ticket with APNU. Little of their founding principles remained to be seen. Their campaign accused the PPP/C of corruption. Nagamootoo was going to rescue the treasury from the incumbent government. Of course, we know what happened to the treasury afterwards. Although, the PPP/C closed the vote gap between themselves and the AFC and APNU combined, it was not enough. APNU+AFC formed the government with a margin of less than 5,000 votes.

Since the 2015 betrayal of its founding principles, it’s been a downhill slide for the AFC. In the 2018 local elections, the most recent time they ran separately from APNU, they got 9,000 votes or 4.4 per cent of the vote.

The disillusionment, disappointment and frustration from supporters, backers and members reached a breaking point when AFC parliamentarian Charrandass Persaud defected and voted with the opposition on a no-confidence motion against the coalition. This was followed by the insane 33 is not a majority of 65 farce, the attempted rigging of the 2020 election and the five-month standoff.

Their support continued downhill in 2020. The stand-alone numbers are not directly available as they ran as APNU+AFC. However, the erosion in their vote is evident from the coalition totals in districts where the AFC had boosted the APNU+AFC performance in 2015 but failed to do so in 2020.

THE CALCULUS
With the above in mind, some reasonable inferences can be drawn for what caused the AFC roll-over in 2015, and what’s prompting their maybe, maybe not test probe now.

Going into 2015, their peak in support was already behind them. This was as far as they could go alone as the Third Force. But personal ambition was burning bright. A Prime Minstership and a few ministerial posts could be in the offing. Nagamootoo was available. He was more acceptable to Granger, and had stature amongst PPP/C supporters. Besides if rumour is true, Trotman had achieved his mission of using the AFC to split the PPP/C vote, it only needed to be recombined differently now to give the PNCR/APNU a shot at capturing the government. So the AFC cut a sweet deal for 40 per cent of the take in seats – more than double any possible contribution they could make to the APNU+AFC Coalition vote total.

The coalition stayed together during the Granger years, getting past whatever jockeying for position there was. But a new calculus came into being after the 2020 election loss. Now they are testing the waters with the ambiguous talk of maybe, or maybe not leaving the coalition in six months. And Norton, the new leader, does not like it. The AFC says they would retain their parliamentary seats even if there were a split. Norton says no – the confusion must be a little misunderstanding.

But all of these factors would have had to have been considered in the AFC cost/benefit of continuing to hitch their wagon to the volatile Norton train. This six-month window provides the best of all worlds. If things go worse under Norton, they’ve established some distancing from the PNCR, if not they still have an agreement in place.

The noises being made are surely timed to strengthen their negotiating hand with Norton, who is yet to fully establish his grip on certain less strident sections of his party. Also, Norton’s street tactics cannot be sitting well with those supporters who remained with the AFC. So they are likely looking to blow enough smoke to forestall those supporters gravitating back to the PPP/C.

Secondarily, this move may have some allure for Granger’s PNCers whom he had reclaimed from the AFC in 2011.

The AFC certainly were in no hurry to leave during the five-month rigging attempt. They even did their part with the Russian hackers story. So it’s hard to imagine conscience at play now, or believe that they have seen the light and now value the idea of bringing a balance to parliament – supporting good ideas from either side of the aisle, as apposed to the existing legacy Granger arrangement, in which they’re are in actuality tied to and submersed in the PNCR and its conduct, and now look to be smeared with the same brush as the new leadership.