Dear Editor,
Ever since his assumption to the highest office in the land, President Granger, in realpolitik form, has moved swiftly to provide effective leadership and institutional changes. As a historian, author of several books on Guyana and the Caribbean, as well as the publisher of the Guyana Review magazine, he understands the history of the country very well and he is not shy about using power to effectuate the necessary changes that coincide with his vision for a new Guyana. If current trends continue, Granger will in effect transform the course of Guyana’s history and he will have a lasting and pervasive impact on the political culture and Guyanese ethos.
While the Granger administration enjoys its honeymoon period, some hard facts should not go unnoticed. One, the governing coalition is not your typical coalition. In general, coalition governments, as they exist in other countries, tend to capture much more than a mere 51% of the electorate, and, coalitions are composed of parties where the smaller of the coalition partners can barter their support to exact concessions from the larger partner. The bargaining power of the AFC has been reduced by a constitutional provision preventing post-election coalitions, as well as the Cummingsburg Accord, signed by both coalition partners.
Two, despite what the enthusiasts now proclaim, the APNU+AFC is not a government of “national unity” (neither was the PPP/C). The fact remains that the PPP/C is still the largest political party in Guyana (with 32 parliamentary seats). And, as the election clearly demonstrates, the electorate/nation remains ethnically divided, probably more so than in previous elections. The new government has a unique opportunity to expand on the coalition support by cutting into the PPP base before the 2020 elections. Granger, however, will have to control the partisan throng by keeping the old PNC rearguard at bay while making genuine overtures to the supporters of the PPP. He will have a greater impact on the Guyanese political landscape if he can bridge the racial gap between the two major ethnic communities and move the needle closer to a government of national unity.
A central feature of any democracy is reflected in periodic changes in government through transparently free and fair elections. An equally important characteristic of a functioning democratic system is the presence of a political opposition that operates within the ambit of the rules of engagement to support, critique or reshape public policy. Whether the PPP can become an effective opposition party, depends on a number of basic factors, all of which centre around its ability to fully recover from its recent electoral defeat. Reasons, among others, for the PPP’s electoral loss include, but are not limited to: arrogance on the part of PPP leadership, the undemocratic nature of its party apparatus, long-standing accusations of corruption, a well-oiled opposition force that exploited the PPP/C weaknesses and placed the party on the defensive, an effective anti-PPP social media campaign, as well as its antagonistic relations with the USA, a country already weary of the antics of the nearby Nicolas Maduro government in Venezuela.
However, there are two overriding characteristics defining the nature of what the PPP/C has become internally since its origin as a mass-based party that have contributed to its overall image of a spent party, leading to its electoral defeat at the polls. One, the party apparatus has been taken over by a small unprofessional “lumpen” element associated with its “working class” philosophy, truncating over the years the intellectual core that once guided the direction of the party. The lack of a professional intellectual leadership placed the party in the hands of individuals who became vindictive against its opponents, often times treated as though they were enemies of the state. The Nandlall/Kaieteur News and Bheri Ramsaran episodes come to mind. Two, the Marxist principle of democratic centralism by which the PPP governed itself stifled criticism of its internal policy and leadership, creating an environment whereby few individuals at the hierarchical top dictated policies and exercised control, leaving little room for reforms based on constructive criticisms. Ironically, the current crop of PPP leaders strayed away from the virtues of its founder/leader (honesty, incorruptible, humility, etc), while adherence to the core ideological values of the Jagans have placed the party in decline, and in jeopardy. The demons which the post-Jagan leaders have nurtured internally have now engulfed the party, including a younger generation that has been inculcated within its ranks over the years. From all appearances, the PPP has reached a point where there does not seem to exist the critical mass necessary to pull the party out of the Gordian knot in which it is embedded. The party is in dire need of new leadership, organization and ideology if it is to emerge as a credible opposition force, and eventually, be seen as a government in waiting. It runs the risk of becoming left out in the corridors of power, as it will likely face criticisms from every corner of Guyanese society in its attempt to reinvent itself.
The PPP/C may do well to hastily begin to reconstruct its image, internally and externally, and allow credible leaders to emerge in a democratic manner.
Its salvation may also lie with its ability to reduce the powers of the executive and promote constitutional reforms, which the Granger government has agreed to do. If coalition politics is the way forward, a renewed PPP should seek to build alliance with other parties, the AFC or APNU not excluded. Regardless, while opportunities exist for APNU/AFC to expand upon its support base, the PPP faces a lengthy and arduous road ahead
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack
