Dear Editor,
When President Obama and the Democratic Party advocated for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), they had a clear motive: that universal health care should be available to American citizens. The way in which they sought to obtain that outcome remains debatable. What is less arguable is that the Republican Party was easily perceived as opposing the ACA without proposing an attractive alternative. There are instances in which both Senator John McCain and Governor Mitt Romney proposed eliminating legal barriers that prevent health insurance companies from competing like automobile insurance companies, thus reducing prices due to competition. For their own reasons, however, the Republican Party was soon boxed in as nothing more than a ‘party of no,’ and the ACA became the law of the land in the USA.
In Guyana, from a PR perspective, a similar contest appears to be unfolding regarding anti-money laundering (AML) legislation. Even though APNU has recently publicised what they are for – stronger AML laws – they are now more easily perceived as being opposed to an outcome, instead of being in favour of another. While it appeared to take ages for APNU to publicise what they wanted, it was comparatively easy to know what they were against. In contrast, the AFC stated very early and often what they were for: an operationalised Public Procurement Commission. Even now, it’s fairly easy for many observers to conclude privately that what APNU really wants are not just stronger AML laws, but also democracy in the form of local government elections that lead to constitutional reform so that, for one thing, MPs would be elected by the communities they are supposed to represent. If that surmise is correct, it is baffling that the linkage has not been made publicly and very repeatedly. Certainly, no less an analyst than Henry Jeffrey seems to suggest as much in his article ‘The politics of money laundering: who will blink first?’ (SN, March 26).
The PPP/C, on the other hand, wants AML legislation as it stands. Despite actual quiet acquiescence to many of APNU’s demands regarding AML legislation itself, the PPP/C has been able to position and market itself as being for an outcome it describes. There are sensible reasons to suspect that the PPP/C has ulterior motives as embodied in a glaring failure to prosecute a single money laundering case, but these are poorly expressed by the opposition who may feel that a statement of the obvious is unnecessary. That leaves a vacuum filled by a drumbeat of what the PPP/C is for, and what the opposition is against. The situation is further fuelled by the PPP/C’s ability to monopolise taxpayer-funded media to propagandise their overall position.
Obviously, both the PPP/C and the opposition are for and against a variety of positions and outcomes. As things stand, many observers believe that the PPP/C’s actions make it hard to define what they are against that is in the public interest – their actions don’t display strong willingness to combat mismanagement of the sugar and rice industries, violent crime, corruption, or even suicide. On the other side, even if they can be excused because they don’t manage police or military forces, for instance, the opposition’s actions poorly define what they are for that is in the public interest. Still, a vibrant democratic tension that invites public participation instead of fatigued apathy demands participants to state clearly and often, but not monotonously, both what they are for and what they are against, and the reverse. A poor balance of that task, as the Republican Party found out with the ACA, leads to defeat.
Yours faithfully,
Mark DaCosta
Hubert Wong
Tarron Khemraj
