If one didn’t know better, one might have thought that some of our politicians were competing with the rulers of the Italian city states in Renaissance times, since there has been more than enough intrigue and perfidy to go around in the last ten days. Be that as it may, the deals, reversals, debates and pruning in relation to the Budget have sent events hurtling along with the velocity of a meteor shower, although exactly where we have ended up, no one is altogether sure. The final word for the week on what transpired came from President Ramotar on Friday evening. In a live broadcast to the nation he described the opposition and/or its budget cuts in highly censorious terms, peppering his address with language such as “poisonous,“ “vindictively butchered,” “scalped,” “ominous threat,” “foul deed,” “bitter men obsessed with achieving personal power,” and a “callous and mean-spirited” opposition. Somewhat contradictorily, however, at the end of that salvo, he then assured everyone that he was committed to dialogue which he viewed as the best way “to narrow our differences and reach consensus on the way forward.” The public was left to muse on how the President thought differences could be narrowed when dealing with such “bitter,” “callous” and “mean-spirited” men, and if the talk of dialogue, therefore, was nothing but rhetoric.
It is not that the PPP/C does not have justification for its anger with APNU, at least, since as the President correctly pointed out it had reneged on its agreement with the PPP/C. However, that was after it had first reneged on an understanding with the AFC, and had then decided unilaterally to meet with the government without telling the latter party. Its next move was to compound the problem by not officially telling the AFC that it had reached an accord with the government. It was an outcry from its own supporters about the substance of the deal and the leaking of an AFC email which caused it to reverse course, and brought it back to the negotiations with the AFC. It was hardly a very honourable performance, and the appearance of deviousness aside, it simply underlined Mr Granger’s utter inexperience in the political arena.
The President’s speech clearly indicated, however, that the real source of the governing party’s anger was the budget cuts in which the AFC had participated, and not APNU’s volte face. In the process, Mr Ramotar did reveal for the public’s benefit at least the position the government adopted on matters raised in the discussions, and the fact that in the original agreement with APNU, they had acceded to a $2B fund for depressed communities. This proposal unfortunately will presumably now have been extinguished along with the abandoned deal which gave rise to it.
Despite the government’s denunciations of the cuts made last week, it is not so much the paring of expenditure in and of itself which is the problem; what really stings is the abridgement of power. Significantly, the favoured phrase among ministers that was also taken up by the President, is “one-seat dictatorship,“ which if nothing else indicates that they are having difficulty coming to terms with the idea that they are in the minority in the National Assembly.
They also seem oblivious to the fact that they have only been able to take the reins of government at all because of a constitutional quirk; in other democracies it would have been possible for the two opposition parties to form a coalition and become the government on that basis. It happened here in 1964, of course, in a previous constitutional incarnation. In addition, if they were honest with themselves, they would also acknowledge that if they had been returned to office with a one-seat majority, they would have behaved in exactly the same manner as they did when they had a comfortable majority, and as they are still trying to do as a minority, for that matter.
When it was announced on Friday morning that the President would address the nation that evening, the political grapevine was initially abuzz with the possibility that he might declare a snap poll, which, it must be said, he has the power to do. Obviously that is not what the government intends at the moment, and in any case, the opposition cut Gecom’s subvention, presumably with a view to blocking the possibility of an election in the near future. They did make it clear, however, that a supplementary would be voted for local government polls, although these were premised on the passage of the relevant legislation first. One presumes too, that should an early general election be called, the combined opposition would be obliged to vote a supplementary for the purpose. An early poll, however, would hardly be in their interest for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they need to demonstrate they are effective and responsive to the needs of their two constituencies. One presumes too that finances would be more of a challenge for them than for the PPP/C.
While prima facie, at least, it looks as if the government would be more likely to call a snap poll than the opposition, it is still not possible to speculate at this stage about the specific circumstances which might trigger it. It may be significant, nevertheless, that the President said in his address: “However, dialogue cannot be constructive or productive when the other side is intransigent or adopts an ‘all or nothing’ posture,” which would seem to set up the conditions whereby the governing party might tell the nation that new general and regional elections were necessary. Since at the moment no one could safely predict the outcome of a poll, it is difficult to see them invoking this or any other reason in the immediate future. It would seem more likely that the PPP/C would first want to re-establish its connection to its traditional base, so it could have some reasonable expectation of an overall majority. It might be noted that there is some evidence of them starting to do this, and presumably when they feel some confidence in a possible outcome, that is when a snap election might come up for consideration.
It goes for all the parties, that following the 2011 election which raised democratic expectations, there is a need to consult with the voters. That APNU has been failing to do this is apparent from the fact that it seemed to have been taken off-guard when its supporters – particularly those in Linden – reacted angrily to the deal which was struck with the government in relation to the electricity rates. All the parties should recognize that electors should not be taken for granted; we have moved beyond the stage when voters were courted at election time every five years, and then forgotten in between. Furthermore, what is possible in any given situation is not always clear to a party supporter on the ground, and it is up to the senior echelons of that party to explain the actions of the leadership, and why certain approaches or concessions, as the case may be, are necessary. Above all, it has to be explained to the electorate that in these situations progress will necessarily be slow.
After what happened in the case of the Budget and given their obsession with power, the government will not be looking forward to future encounters in the National Assembly. They avoided dialogue prior to the announcement of the Budget, and then were prepared to deal with APNU alone to effectively divide the opposition. They will be reluctant to make too many concessions, partly because given their view of power they equate this with weakness, and partly because they will not be overly anxious for the electorate to get the impression that working with the opposition produces better results than if they governed without outside input. In other words, they will be caught on the horns of something of a dilemma in relation to dialogue.
In the meantime ministers are condemning the Budget cuts in terms which are disparaging, but in most cases, not accurate, and it is unfortunate that the President too, forgetting that he was not speaking as the General Secretary of the PPP, but as the head of state, chose to follow the same line, and in particular to descend to the use of deprecatory language. Nobody is too sure what happens from here on, but if he really wants to promote himself as committed to dialogue, then he would need to adopt a rather more presidential tone than was in evidence on Friday.
