Dear Editor,
I have noted the attacks on the AFC coming out of the decision taken by its National Executive Committee (NEC) against entering into a pre-election coalition with the PNC. Recently such statements have come from none other than the Leader of the PNC himself, who of all people should be aware of the difficulties that the AFC would face in entering a coalition with his party. Interestingly, from the PPP side Hydar Ally (PS, MoH) is also urging the AFC to keep the door open to the PNC.
Some of those who support coalition do not realise that our current electoral system is designed to preserve the dominance of the PPP and PNC by squeezing out third parties. The first aspect is that the party with the largest number of votes forms the government, even if it falls short of an overall majority. This ensures that neither the PPP nor the PNC can be written out of the power equation because their banks of ethnic votes remain big enough to put them within striking distance of attaining power.
The second aspect is the closed list system for extracting Members of Parliament. This system ensures that the list leaders have iron control over MPs (and ministers in the case of the party in government), and kills any possibility of independent thought and expression.
When the AFC energised close to 30,000 Guyanese citizens in the general elections of 2006 and shook the foundation of this established political order to the core, the PPP and PNC quickly found common cause. It is with this appreciation of the threat to the established two-party order that we must view both the record of the PPP and PNC after the advent of the AFC in 2005, and the mischief behind the current calls for a pre-election coalition with the PNC and AFC for 2011.
Firstly, the PPP and PNC concluded a backroom deal to support each other’s candidates in regions where neither had secured a majority. Mind you, this was despite public expressions for “unity of the opposition” by the PNC. Not only would this “unity” have seen more regional councils being governed by opposition parties, but it would also have provided a stronger basis for advocacy of meaningful local government reform.
Secondly, the PPP threw a lifeline to the cash-strapped PNC by making available taxpayers’ monies for scrutineers, a repeat of the deal they had entered into prior to the 2006 elections. The AFC had to go all the way to the Court of Appeal to secure a ruling that it and other parliamentary parties were entitled to a portion of those funds, since identical to the case prior to the election it received not a blind cent voluntarily from the PNC.
Thirdly, even after the AFC won a “proportionate allocation” ruling, the PNC and PPP then got together to pass legislation, namely the Elections Laws Amendment Bill 2009, that effectively overruled the Court of Appeal’s decision, making the other parliamentary opposition parties subservient to the PNC, and again preserving the status quo. The legal arrangements put in place by this perversion of parliamentary power spells hell for the AFC and GAP/ROAR in terms of mobilising scrutineers.
Fourthly, the PPP and PNC rallied to enact Recall legislation that would bring to heel any who might be inclined to eschew the party line in the national interest. Their intent was very obviously to cement their individual and collective stranglehold over the Guyana body politic.
Fifthly, the AFC has been consistently shut out of talks between the government and opposition, leaving only President Jagdeo and Mr Robert Corbin at the table.
Where was the much vaunted “opposition unity” in all of this? The answer lies in the inescapable reality that once the AFC entered the political arena it became a competitor not only to the PPP but to the PNC as well, because we ran against the zero-sum political order that they both created, and entrenched for over half a century.
Problematic for us too is that we have very real differences of philosophy with the PNC. We in the AFC believe in the sanctity of elections, and the recent experiences of Vincent Alexander and Winston Murray do not inspire my confidence. We believe in the independence of MPs to put what they consider to be the national interest before party interest. We have also taken a position on street protest that has seen us take pressure from quarters close to the PNC. Given these and other differences in values, the real mischief lies in the fact that our party list system does not allow for a distinct identity of the AFC within a pre-election coalition. It cannot guarantee the AFC the option of withdrawing from a coalition with its parliamentary strength intact, if the PNC attempts to destroy AFC once we are in the clutches of pre-election coalition or if they renege on any agreed programme in a coalition compact.
The very real risk of the AFC being subsumed in the PNC must provoke consideration as to whether our political landscape can do without the moderating influence of the AFC, and if we are willing to return to the bipolar status quo and the associated continuation of the half a century old state of persistent limited war with its occasional deadly eruptions. I freely admit that the PNC have been saying all the right things, but the fact remains a successful pre-election coalition will inherit the reins of absolute power. Therefore, what are the chances that the PNC will stick to any gentleman’s agreement? For make no mistake, a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ is the extent of the guarantee that we will have.
To my mind a pre-election coalition brings us full circle, back to 1992 where the “good guys” with “good talks” replaced the “bad guys” and those of us in the AFC executive, especially we who came out of the PPP, are painfully aware of the ease with which the best of intentions can evaporate once the seductive prize of absolute power is attained.
‘Backward feeling of entitlement’
Kindly indulge me in examining another argument put forward by those in favour for.
These proponents say Khemraj Ramjattan brought no Indian support to the AFC and that the AFC only got “PNC votes” because of Raphael Trotman. This, however, is nothing more than the expression of the backward feeling of entitlement that is ingrained in the supporters of the established order where “Black votes belong to the PNC” and “Indian votes belong to the PPP”; that is, that these two parties have transport over the respective major ethnicities. This amounts to blatant eye-pass for the historical independence of African-Guyanese voters who have shown time and again to be willing to break away from traditional race-based politics.
As far back as the 1950s significant numbers of African-Guyanese supported John Carter in preference to Forbes Burnham, and it was Blacks who many times (spanning decades) boisterously hoisted Cheddi Jagan on their shoulders, much to the chagrin of the PNC. They broke the mould again in the heyday of the multiracial WPA in the late 1970s/1980. Again in 1992, when many Blacks, with the slogan of “Give Jagan a chance,” either voted for the PPP or stayed home; and yet again in 2006, when they voted for the AFC, and continued to stay away from the PNC by the tens of thousands. The fact is that the AFC presented Ramjattan and Trotman and a list of candidates simultaneously to the electorate. A vote for the AFC, therefore, was a vote for both candidates, that diverse list, and the message of brotherhood, tolerance and mutual respect even in diversity.
The fact that thousands of traditional PPP supporters felt secure enough to absolve themselves of giving support to the PPP by abstaining from voting is conveniently forgotten by those who argue against the AFC. I strongly believe that despite PPP support having sunk to even new lows after 2006, such conscientious abstainers can be motivated to return to the fold of the PPP if there is a credible threat (such as was nullified by the AFC in 2006) of the PNC regaining access to absolute power.
Thus the PPP itself eagerly awaits an AFC/PNC coalition which will give it the upper hand that it has always enjoyed in the bipolar confrontation of the status quo. The PPP’s Hydar Ally is so fearful of a coalition not materialising, that he is publicly urging the AFC to keep the door open to the PNC! We note in passing too that many of those same voices urging coalition out of one side of their mouth are still telling African-Guyanese not to participate in elections out of the other. These forces miscalculated horribly in 2006 where the PPP won the elections by a mere 34,000 votes with over 150,000 registered voters failing to turn up to the ballot!
The AFC was formed precisely so as to provide an alternative to the PPP and PNC, and thus far it has provided the political space for those of us who identify with neither of the two. Many of us on the AFC’s Executive happen to believe that a third choice remains relevant and even imperative today. From a very personal point of view, I have a serious problem with those who say to me that I, an Indian who does not support the PPP, must have no choice other than to support the PNC or surrender my right to the franchise. I am certain that African-Guyanese who choose not to support the PNC and thus forced to support the PPP would be similarly incensed. Those who stridently advocate coalition with the full knowledge of the potential pitfalls are attempting to box the conscientious voter into a corner to make a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, taking dry land out of the equation!
The AFC is the only major political party that can boast that it has earned every single vote it got at elections. There is not a single person that went into a polling booth saying that their grandfather and father voted for the AFC and so must they, their sons and daughters. To put it in its correct perspective, the AFC did not get a single vote from the PNC or the PPP, but from some 30,000 Guyanese citizens!
The AFC is the only political entity in Guyana that does not embrace, nor cower to, maximal leadership and ethnic tyranny. Since we do not vote down racial lines, no AFC leader can be sure that what they ask of the NEC will be automatically acceded to. Nothing occurs among us without deep clarification and counter-argument. Those who voted for the AFC did so because they wanted the PPP and PNC to become accountable to the people of Guyana. Therefore, it is for these people to decide whether the AFC should continue to be a vehicle for them.
I am not against coalition; however, we need to realise that our political troubles are not just a consequence of good and evil men. The fact is that no political party – mine included – is composed of angels. What happens is that our system of absolute power, as practised under both the PPP and PNC, rots fallible men to the core.
I personally believe that the best possible result to the 2011 election is that the AFC wins it. My second best scenario is that no single party wins an outright majority, and this of course, is only realisable if there is a three-horse race. It is only the legal power that comes from the ability to swing a parliamentary majority that will allow us to curb the excesses that both the PPP and PNC have demonstrated that they are capable of.
Yours faithfully,
Gerhard Ramsaroop
