In an article captioned ‘Opportunities seen in Corbin’s move,’ published in the Stabroek News on Monday, March 29, the Leader of the AFC made a number of comments which can best be described as perplexingly conflicting. Mr Trotman is reported to have said the following: (1) “…the parties in opposition have to decide whether they want to remain in opposition in perpetuity or whether they believe they can go together to challenge the PPP”; (2) “…the AFC accepts that alliances are imperative because it believes that the society is eating away at itself”; and (3) “I don’t think so,” when responding to the reporter about the possibility of the PNC and the AFC forming an alliance in the future.
The last response means that all Mr Trotman said earlier with respect to alliances was just empty rhetoric. The first comment about the need to co-operate appeared to demonstrate an appreciation of the general views of Guyanese everywhere. The AFC is aware that Guyanese at home and abroad genuinely believe that the continued erosion of Guyana can be arrested if parties and stakeholders form a strategic alliance to defeat the PPP/C in the 2011 general elections. But how is this comment about the need for an alliance different from what the PNCR and Robert articulated since 2006. The PNCR endorsed the position of political co-operation so strongly that it took action in 2006 to work with a broad platform comprising smaller political parties and other stakeholders to contest the election that year. A lot has been seen in the press recently regarding the collapse of that third party alliance initiative. The jury is still out as it relates to the cause(s) of the collapse, but what is clear now is that what has been conveniently pedalled as the basis for the collapse, is a calculated falsehood. Based on the recent exchanges in the press by those who were integrally involved in those alliance talks, it is clear that Corbin and the PNCR were in no way, form, or fashion responsible for that unfortunate setback.
According to Mr Trotman, the nation is eating away at itself, but despite this he did not hesitate to respond in the negative when asked about co-operating. The question is then whether the AFC is sincerely interested in any alliance. Is it serious about putting Guyana first or is it focused on achieving the objective articulated by its Vice-Chair Sheila Holder, who stated in the press some time ago that the AFC would become the leading opposition party in Guyana. Is the AFC, therefore, hoping to be just that, the main opposition party? While we are disappointed in the comments of the leader of the AFC, whom we hold in high regard, we do not find his party’s position on political alliances surprising. Mr Trotman also said that the AFC will form an alliance with ‘desirable’ persons from the PNCR and other parties, so we guess in that way the AFC will be able to prove its mettle and protect its image, and not be tainted by Burnham’s baggage-loaded PNC, as they put it. Guess this new alliance will be called AFC and an alliance of persons. But how will such a concoction go down with the PNCR base? Will the ‘desirable’ persons from the PNCR, forming the alliance, be able to attract the votes of the undesirables?
This line of thinking has been articulated by the party’s Co-chair Khemraj Ramjattan on two separate occasions. On the first occasion, Mr Ramjattan was speaking to a Canadian-based, Guyanese audience, in Toronto, Canada, in November 2009, when a participant commented that it would be in the interest of Guyana if all the political parties formed an alliance to work towards wining the next election to rescue the country. To this the Co-chair responded in an aggressive and condescending manner, saying the AFC would never form an alliance with the PNCR. Mind you, he had just delivered a condemnatory speech on Burnham and the PNC. Mr Ramjattan told the gathering that the businessmen who supported the AFC would not agree to forming an alliance with the PNCR. With this it is logical to conclude that the AFC has defined itself as a party for the business class and not for the working class. Mr Ramjattan responded in similar vein in a recent interview on Demerara Waves, and went on to make comments to suggest that should the AFC join forces with the PNCR, it was likely to be swallowed up by the larger PNCR, and that would leave members of the AFC not being recognized to hold certain office should the alliance succeed in becoming the Government of Guyana.
Ms Holder was asked by the same station whether she believed her party’s interest was paramount to the national interest, and she unhesitatingly stated no, but when the question of a possible AFC/ PNCR alliance in the interest of the nation was put, she said that the AFC had to have regard to its principles and the basis upon which it was formed. She asserted that the PNCR had too much baggage. Again a clear contradiction. In the light of what is being paraded as government in Guyana and the inexplicable suffering of Guyanese as a result of this charade one would have believed that any political organization worth its salt would sacrifice its self-serving principles and do that which is beneficial for the national good.
Is the Alliance for Change not interested in an alliance with the PNCR only, or is it against alliances period?
The AFC, like the PPP/C, is aware that the PNCR is able to contest any election by itself, as it is definitely broad based and structured. So the PNCR’s call for an alliance with stakeholders cannot be construed as a sign of weakness, but should be seen as discharging a duty and responsibility to all stakeholders in Guyana. It was Abraham Joshua Herschel who said, “An act is not good because we feel obliged to do it; it is rather that we feel obliged to do it because it is good.” I am quite sure that we all have a desire to see good come of Guyana, so why not feel obliged to do that which is good?
Yours faithfully,
Ian Williams
Laverna Semple- Burnette
Natasha Cameron
Esther Fitzpatrick
Lurlene Nestor
