Dear Editor,
THE inability of APNU and AFC to agree on satisfactory terms and conditions shows the inherent challenges of coalition arrangements.
When in opposition, a political party faces many obstacles, particularly the lack of political power or influence to effect desired changes for its constituents. The situation becomes more complex if a dominant political party holds governmental authority.

Despite being out of power for 23 years up until 2015, APNU, in collaboration with the AFC, believed that they could oust the PPP/C due to accusations of widespread corruption and ineffective governance.
Consequently, they created the Cummingsburg Accord (CA), outlining their shared interests and governance priorities. Any disagreements during the negotiations were either resolved or mitigated in pursuit of what they considered the “greater good,” which was to remove the PPP/C from executive power.

The APNU+AFC 2015-2020 coalition understood that prolonged internal conflicts would benefit the PPP/C. Through policy implementation and extra-constitutional actions, they therefore signalled their determination to retain executive power and keep the PPP/C in opposition for an extended period.
The APNU+AFC coalition’s 2015 elections victory left the PPP/C disheartened, fearing their chances of reclaiming power were slim. They felt that the coalition would consolidate its executive power by any means necessary, including electoral rigging.

In their moments of despair (immediately after the 2015 elections results were declared) a group of PPP/C leaders approached Dr Bharrat Jagdeo imploring him to return to active politics and take control over the PPP/C.
Being a Guyanese nationalist imbued with vast political experience, and to save Dr Cheddi Jagan’s party from disintegration, Dr Jagdeo acquiesced to their request.

Dr Jagdeo decided to restructure the party and restore its operations. Rebuilding the PPP/C at every level was prioritised, with a particular emphasis on youth and women participation.
Grassroots mobilisation was an essential aspect, leading to a series of community-based meetings across all regions to clarify the party’s vision, development plan, and implementation strategies. This approach contributed to the establishment of the political culture of “taking governance to the people” in 2020.

The source of political disagreements between APNU and the AFC differs from that of the PPP/C. APNU and the AFC have prioritised the distribution of parliamentary seats and ministerial positions over creating a clear vision and development strategy for the country.

This approach mirrors the situation in the early 1960s when Dr Cheddi Jagan invited the PNC to join the PPP in a coalition. The PNC leader, Mr Forbes Burnham, requested equal ministerial roles and control of the Ministries of Home Affairs and Finance.

Similarly, those coalition discussions lacked any coherent plan for national development, with power allocation being the primary focus.
Despite the PPP/C’s efforts at rebuilding between 2015-2020, the APNU+AFC coalition had a fair chance of victory at the 2020 elections. However, their decision to close four sugar estates backfired, thinking it would weaken the PPP/C.

This inhumane action cost them the elections’ victory. The key lesson here is that political leaders should avoid vendetta politics and prioritise national interests over personal or sectional issues.
The effectiveness of coalition governance in Guyana is still uncertain. Supporters claim that it benefits a diverse society, but internal power struggles are challenging.

The 2015-2020 coalition governance fell below expectations. Supporters must show that it is superior to the “winner-takes-all” system which encourages political competition and development relies on democracy that fosters competition.
Yours truly,
Dr Tara Singh