Dear Editor,
The WPA is fast becoming irrelevant. The WPA delegation at the June 16, meeting comprised well-known individuals, some of whom are deeply embedded in the state/government structure or have long been co-opted onto committees vested with policy formulation beneficial to the Granger administration.
Dr Clive Thomas is the hatchet man at GuySuCo, David Hinds and Tacuma Ogunseye are the intellectual apologists for the coalition sheltered by the Guyana Chronicle, Desmond Trotman is a member of SARA, while Jinnah Rahman is on standby for a junior ministerial post at the Ministry of Agriculture. The other delegation members publicly and privately defend the government on whom they depend, in one way or another, to make a living.
The WPA found themselves trapped, given the setting in which the meeting was held. It was too late when they realized that they had called for the wrong type of meeting. The humiliation they had suffered and its implications for their constituents was indeed a matter of grave concern, but they took it to the wrong court. In a situation where one party rules, a meeting with a president to call into question his authority to assign and/or reassign cabinet portfolios is bound to end up dead in the water.
However, in the case of APNU coalition politics, it is generally understood that there is a presumed willingness and capacity to broker compromise on such sensitive matters. Notwithstanding attempts at covering up internal differences of a tactical and strategic nature within the APNU+AFC, threatening rifts in the coalition are becoming increasingly obvious with every passing day.
The coalition of convenience seems bound by a common denominator, to keep the PPP/C out of office. The WPA should have called for a meeting of the Govern-ing Leadership Council (GLC) of the APNU, chaired by President David Granger with Dr Roopnaraine as vice chairman and Mr Joe Harmon as the General Secretary. The GLC comprises the four founding parties of the APNU which includes the WPA. The GLC’s guiding principles are inclusivity and consensus decision making.
Interestingly, the Executive Committee of the GLC comprises three PNC representatives ‒ Messrs Granger, Corbin and Harmon ‒ and two WPA representatives, Drs Roopnaraine and Thomas.
The committee is charged with dealing with security and politically sensitive matters. Cabinet reshuffling is considered a politically sensitive matter in any ruling coalition. Considering the fact that APNU councils had not met for two years, questions are being asked as to whether the GLC or its Executive Committee met to discuss Dr Roopnaraine’s removal and whether there was consensus on the matter. Did these bodies have anything to do with the broad consultations Mr Harmon referred to? Assuming they did, it meant that Dr Thomas, a member of the executive committee of GLC knew about the decision before it was made public.
Within the setting of the GLC and as a founder member of the partnership, the WPA would have been in a stronger position to leverage its pleadings. In a meeting with the President and a high level ministerial delegation, the WPA was clearly at a disadvantage in terms of the status and levels of representation. Moreover, the WPA made a mistake by agreeing to have the meeting on the President’s turf which was clearly to his advantage.
Thus, calling for the wrong meeting; having the meeting on the President’s turf; taking along members who were already in the government; and Dr Roopnaraine’ absence from the WPA delegation must all have left the PNC laughing at them. The outcome therefore could have been easily predicted. Small wonder that the ball was tossed back into the WPA court.
The WPA delegation was told that members of cabinet and parliament who make up the coalition are expected to brief their respective constituents on the background to government decisions that affect them. By implication, what that meant was that Dr Roopnaraine was not doing what was expected of him, that is, keeping his colleagues informed about decisions at the level of government but more particularly, about the challenges that were confronting him personally and professionally at the Ministry of Education. Dr Roopnaraine’s comrades were in the dark as to how and why Vincent Alexander was parachuted into the Ministry of Education to understudy Roopnaraine and further, why and where the decision was taken to hive off major responsibilities from his ministry and place them under the Ministry of the Presidency as a so-called Department of Innovation and Education Reform, costing Guyanese taxpayers almost $47 million.
The establishment of this mysterious entity will come up for debate in the National Assembly in early July when a supplementary provision on the current and capital estimates amounting to some $6.3 billion is tabled for consideration by the Minister of Finance.
The fundamental issue now is while Dr Roopnaraine remains in President Granger’s cabinet and as a Member of Parliament, the WPA is now without a government minister with gazetted portfolio responsibilities.
Incidentally, it is to be recalled that according to the Cummingsburg Accord Prime Minister Nagamootoo is tasked with the responsibility of recommending ministerial appointments and providing organizational structures for ministries for the approval of the President. Questions have been asked as to whether Mr Nagamootoo had a role to play in Dr Roopnaraine’s removal and whether he will have a role to play in the appointment of the Minister’s replacement. Further, will he be called upon to provide the organizational structure for Dr Roopnaraine’s department or the about to be established Department of Innovation and Education Reform under the Ministry of the Presidency.
As a founder of the APNU, the WPA is senior to the AFC which has more ministers and MPs; thus the question that will now arise is whether the WPA will be asked to identify a replacement for Dr Roopnaraine at the MOE or handed a different a ministerial post in the administration?
After all, Nicolette Henry has been asked to hold the portfolio ad interim.
In either of the two scenarios Mr Granger may be forced to enlarge his cabinet further or see the WPA ending up with two representatives in cabinet and by extension, two members in parliament, but this may not be acceptable to other members of the coalition.
This is precisely the dilemma the President faces; moreover, for this reason he will prevaricate until he finds a fit and proper person to assume the responsibility as the country’s Minister of Education.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J Rohee
