All the discussions about grand coalitions among opposition parties might be a little premature. The fog has not yet lifted from the political landscape to give a clear view of what the possibilities are. Naturally, there is some anxiety in certain quarters, because the election is next year, and politicians feel they will need time to sell their message. Having said that, however, for its part the electorate appears unperturbed if not apathetic; it is those close to the political game who are in a rush to pin down something clearly defined. But sometimes events will just not be rushed.
The first issue is that the PPP has not declared who its presidential candidate will be. This newspaper reported on a meeting some weeks ago, when President Jagdeo met with senior members of the party and raised the possibility of a third term. Subsequent to that report, the President denied again that he was seeking another term. The outcome of that encounter, it seems, was inconclusive, but can anyone be sure that the issue is dead and buried? That will only become certain when the ruling party does, in fact, name one of the other contenders from among its ranks as its presidential candidate. In the meantime, the longer they wait to do that, the greater the uncertainty which will be generated about what their true intentions are. In the meantime, the President is chasing down long-term projects with the verve of a man who expects to be in office longer than a year and a bit.
Of course, a third term would necessitate a constitutional amendment, which would probably have to be effected through a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly. There is the alternative of a referendum, but in the first place it is probably too late for that, and in any case, for a variety of reasons it is a high-risk mode of proceeding from the President’s point of view. A two-thirds majority in the House, however, would inevitably require the co-operation of the PNC, and one can reasonably assume that that would not be forthcoming without some kind of deal being in place. There have been plenty of rumours that an arrangement has been arrived at, although only recently the PNC denied once again that it would support a third term for President Jagdeo.
In politics, however, denials are often not immutable, and as said above, laying this particular ghost to rest finally would require the PPP to name a candidate for the presidency other than the current head of state. If, however, for the sake of argument, a number of PNC MPs were to vote with the ‘ayes’ on a constitutional amendment relating to a third term, it would have a seismic effect. Even if there were no announcement of a deal, or a statement that the nation’s two largest parties would be going into the election on a common platform, there could be no doubt that one had been struck. Theoretically speaking, if there were sufficient trust between the two sides, they could fight the election on separate platforms on the understanding that afterwards, there would be appointments in Cabinet for the PNC, and the prime ministership, perhaps, for the leader of that party.
What can be said if any such a scenario were in theory to play out, would be that its implementation would likely be postponed as long as possible. While the PNC Leader could no doubt deliver the modest number of votes in the House which would be required for the passage of a constitutional amendment, the reaction of his constituency would create a different dimension entirely. It would be a move, in other words, fraught with political danger for him.
Be that as it may, it has to be noted that much to the surprise of everyone – including, presumably some sectors of the PNC – the PPP put in an appearance at the ceremony in the Botanical Gardens for the twenty-fifth anniversary of Forbes Burnham’s death on August 6, and more than that, Dr Luncheon laid a wreath. Exactly what this gesture meant is a matter for speculation. Are we to infer that there is a third term deal in some shape or form in the offing, or is it that the PPP as a party might be toying with the idea of an accommodation which does not involve the abolition of the third term limit? Could this be Freedom House, for example, even independently of President Jagdeo, looking at bringing the PNC at some level into government after the election? In the meantime, it would be adjusting its rhetoric and making moves to mend fences in order, among other things, to accustom its constituents to novel approaches. Certainly, the main target for its barbs and polemic in recent times has been the AFC, and not the PNC. Either, therefore, it sees the AFC as representing a particular challenge to the party in the upcoming elections, or it has decided to treat them as the primary opposition factor for some reason which has not yet fully revealed itself.
The other observation which might be made in this regard is that the two major parties traditionally have been accustomed to talking out of both sides of their mouths on the matter of race and politics when election time approaches. In the case of the PPP it might be labelled the bottom-house syndrome. So another possibility is that it is getting feedback from a weary constituency that it is tired of the inter-party tension and dissatisfied with the government, particularly where crime and security are concerned. Is the ruling party responding to that feedback, and reflecting the fear that the AFC’s message might find resonance among PPP voters? If so, its answer might simply be to hijack elements of the message and change its posture towards the PNC.
But for those casting around for alliances, the horizon in relation to the main opposition too could not be described as settled. The PNC leader’s setbacks and shortcomings were dealt with in the editorial of Monday, August 9, and as was pointed out, even although Mr Corbin has indicated he will not be seeking to become the party’s next presidential candidate, this gesture is “nullified” by the fact that he was insisting on remaining the leader. In that position, he would control the campaign and the funds for it, no matter who the presidential candidate was. In addition, if the PNC lost the election but remained the largest opposition party, as leader he would then retain his position as Leader of the Opposition, and his former candidate for the presidency would have no formal standing, unless the party gave him such.
While Mr Corbin has expressed himself open to coalition alliances, one wonders if he would be all that enthusiastic about subsuming the party under the umbrella of a larger opposition grouping, unless there were some understanding about the opposition leader’s position if it lost. The various other complexities relating to the PNC joining a ‘big tent’ were outlined in Monday’s editorial; however, it is worth repeating that Mr Corbin’s record would not inspire confidence that he could attract new voters if he remained as leader of his party, while the results of the 2006 election would suggest that he was a factor in it losing votes. The deep divide in the main opposition is no secret, and as such, it may be that the ramifications of that hiatus have not yet fully played themselves out. Having said that, it should be remarked in passing that the PPP gives the appearance of preferring to deal with Mr Corbin than any other potential PNC leader.
All of this suggests that well-meaning citizens’ efforts to create a broad partnership to contest the 2011 election, no matter how sophisticated, may be in advance of events.
As was pointed out on Monday, the AFC announcement that it would not be allying with either the PPP or the PNC must have caused a certain disequilibrium in relation to its efforts. Whether if there were changes in the PNC landscape the AFC would review its decision, remains to be seen, but for the moment it looks as if ‘big tent’ proposals might have to wait. In any case, the vehicle for a presidential candidate would have to be a political party in some formulation or the other, and a citizens’ group has no traction in the current context in relation to any of our political parties, who in the final analysis will define their own priorities. It is always possible, of course, that with changing circumstances some such association may build enough momentum down the line, so that the political forces of this land could not ignore it, but that is not the case at present.
