AFC will keep its identity

– Ramjattan vows in wake of concerns party merging with APNU

The Alliance For Change (AFC) will continue to maintain its individual identity and its leader Khemraj Ramjattan says he would rather resign than have the party merge with APNU.

“We are going to maintain ourselves as AFC,” Ramjattan told Stabroek News on Friday, emphasising that the AFC and APNU are not going to be merged into a single entity. In a letter to Stabroek News last week, former PNCR executive Sherwood Lowe had questioned whether the APNU+AFC government is becoming a merger more than a partnership.

“I… lean towards an explanation that suggests the coalition is developing a single-party governing mentality in which the normal structures, procedures and rules of power-sharing are considered unnecessary,” he said even as he argued that several factors may be driving the merger of the parties into a single political entity.

Ramjattan told Stabroek News that while he respects Lowe’s opinion he differs vastly with the views expressed. “We are not going to go that way at all,” he said. “I would rather resign as leader of the AFC than have that happen.”

According to the AFC leader, the APNU+AFC coalition was formed for the purpose of moving the country forward. He said that some of the factors highlighted by Lowe “may very well not apply here” while adding that Guyana has its own peculiarities.

The APNU+AFC coalition which is underpinned by the Cummingsburg Accord is a very workable arrangement that is moving the country forward, Ramjattan declared.

Lowe had written that from what one can see from the outside, the APNU+AFC government is not a classic coalition government. “By this, one means that most of the expected structures, procedures and practices that are common to coalition governance worldwide are absent or undeveloped,” he said.

In terms of the common features in the classic coalition model, he identified the existence and content of the coalition agreement. For the APNU+AFC, this includes both the Cummingsburg Accord and the joint election manifesto. Taken together, in terms of size, conciseness, and comprehensiveness, the coalition agreement would rank very high on any world list, he said.

“The missing element, however, is that while the agreement covers philosophies, policies and programmes, we have seen no accord prior to or since the election on the structures, procedures and rules for collective decision-making, information-sharing, and conflict resolution. The common practice for coalition governments worldwide is for these matters to be specified and publicized to bring stability and predictability to the power-sharing arrangement and to increase public understanding and confidence,” Lowe wrote.

He pointed out that the APNU+AFC manifesto promises the establishment of a dispute resolution commission to adjudicate complaints from participating parties but it is not certain if such a body now exists or what are the other structures and systems in place.

 

Not been set up

 

Ramjattan told Stabroek News that a dispute resolution commission has not been set up and according to him, this “shows we have an excellent relationship.” He explained that the disputes which have arisen have been minor and these have been worked out at the leadership level. The AFC leader added that the commission was probably envisioned as an ad-hoc one and there is no need for it at the moment. “You just name this person and then what?” he questioned.

Ramjattan said that if there is a great argument then the commission will be set up but right now he does not see the need for this body. He also does not see any great disputes arising in the future. He emphasised that disputes that have arisen were not major.

Meantime, Lowe said that the second feature expected in coalition governance are cabinet committees, purposely composed of members of all participating parties.

“To the extent that a participating party does not have enough cabinet members (and such is the case for the parties in the current government other than APNU and the AFC), senior party officials or MPs could serve as representatives. Cabinet committees are the backbone of coalition decision-making and coordination. They ensure all sides get ample opportunity at shaping decisions before matters arrive on the cramped agenda of the full cabinet. An effective cabinet committee system also prevents the development of the destabilizing ‘silo effect’ within the coalition, whereby particular portfolios could become the sole and guarded preserve of one minister and his party,” he wrote.

Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo has said that the Cummingsburg Accord has become a true working partnership and there is extensive sharing of government responsibilities.

Lowe identified the third missing feature in the APNU+AFC administration as the system of so-called watchdog junior or associate ministers. “The worldwide practice is to appoint under each portfolio a junior minister from a party different from that of the senior minister. The role of the junior appointee is to ensure the views of his party can be immediately considered in each policy arena and to ensure his party gets first-hand access to information and documents. Here, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs and Ministry of Public Infrastructure are among the few entities with superficial resemblance to this arrangement,” he wrote.

Lowe also said that another missing element concerns the coalition’s silence on key governing principles such as on collective responsibility, citing as an example whether a party can opt out of a decision it does not like. He also highlighted the ‘good faith and no surprises’ rule which has to do with to what extent and in what circumstances could a party make unilateral decisions within its portfolio without warning to the others.

Further, Lowe identified the agree-to-disagree principle and the power of a coalition member to invoke delaying or absolute veto powers on matters of fundamental party interests, which, he noted, commonly encompass controversial ethnic and moral issues.

“One advantage of working out and publicizing such principles is to remove public uncertainty, such as that expressed in the November 16th editorial of the Stabroek News (‘Baishanlin and Minister Trotman’) over whether Minister Trotman’s announcement to grant the company an extension was his personal view and/or that of the government,” Lowe said.

He said that a last missing element is the absence of actions of the coalition members to maintain party distinctiveness. “If we use the number and focus of each individual party’s post-election media releases and conferences, we can conclude that maintaining distinctiveness is not a driving concern. Indeed, some had hoped that the recent decision to increase the salary of ministers was solely an APNU decision… and that the AFC and the WPA would show their higher party principles by distancing themselves from the decision. Later public statements showed that all parties embraced the decision,” he said.

Ramjattan told Stabroek News that the AFC has been issuing press releases and also going around the country holding meetings and has also identified persons for leadership positions in the party. He said that the party will be doing more press conference and he will talk to the chairman about this. He asserted that the absence of such functions does not necessarily mean what Lowe is talking about.

According to Lowe, the absence or weakness of the typical elements of coalition governance in Guyana could be explained by the immaturity of the arrangement or by the inexperience and unpreparedness of the participants. He, however, said that he is leaning towards an explanation that suggests the coalition is developing a single-party governing mentality in which the normal structures, procedures and rules of power-sharing are considered unnecessary.

He argued that several factors may be driving the merger of the parties into a single political entity. “These factors include the personal chemistry or friendships among the main leaders and ministers across party lines; the consequential high trust among parties; the similarities of ideology and policy outlooks of the parties; and the strong desire that the coalition must stay together in the fight against a powerful political opposition,” Lowe asserted.