Since independence several third or independent parties – UF, WPA, ROAR, GAP/ROAR and AFC – have won enough votes to have seats in Parliament, but none was able to win the election outright. With the present pernicious constitution in place, my view has always been that third parties are vital for the fledgling post-1992 democracy, which I have argued has failed to consolidate as Guyana moves closer to dictatorship once again. Some observers have been too harsh to expect a third party to win the general election outright. With the 1980 constitution in place, a third party does not have to win to win. If the leadership of the independent party really understands its role, I feel at present 10 to 15 per cent of the votes are up for grabs.
For starters the leader should not expect to win an election in one cycle. But this raises a fundamental dilemma rooted in the human nature. Which leader 65 years and over will be prepared to lay the foundation of winning 12 per cent of the votes now for a younger generation to extend the advantage to win outright eventually? This type of forward-looking and visionary leadership does not come in abundance in the third world. Visionary leadership is one crucial variable in the formula for economic development. Barbados, for instance, was blessed with outstanding leaders during the early years after independence. Guyana, on the other hand, seems to have a knack for selecting bad ones.
Let us examine the dilemmas facing the independent party because these should shape the strategies of the party. The first and obvious dilemma is there is no loyal ethnic base for the third party. Its political marketplace is made up of mainly independent voters, disaffected individuals from the dominant political parties, young professionals and free-thinking individuals. The implication is the
