The pervasive nature of political unaccountability

‘Control of the process yields control over outcomes. Skilled negotiators think hard about the impact of process on perceptions of interests and alternatives, on the part of their counterparts and those they represent, and on their own side. Then they work to fashion – often to negotiate – processes likely to lead in favorable directions’ (Breakthrough International Negotiations, www josseybass.com). 

This statement came to mind as I was considering how the fracas developed at the swearing-in ceremony of the new Beterverwagting (BV)/Triumph  Neighbourhood Democratic Council and how it was that the 8th May Movement (8MM) that came out of the elections process with a fairly good hand and was nicely located ended up with neither the chair or the deputy chair; either of which it wanted. The existence of the 8MM has provided insight into how exciting politics would be in less bifurcate political conditions, but a level of naivety allowed the 8MM to fall foul of Guyana’s pervasive political unaccountability.

In the local government elections of 2015, the traditional supporters of the PPP/C voted solidly for that party, but under pressure from 8MM, APNU did not participate. As noted last week, this time around APNU reorganized, brought in younger candidates and the results of the elections were APNU 8 seats, PPP 6 and 8MM 4. Although APNU may have preferred the obliteration of 8MM, generally the election results were not bad for any of the parties. The PPP/C improved its position by one seat, APNU, back after its two year hiatus, won the majority of seats, and bearing in mind that 8MM was contesting in a traditional APNU stronghold, its winning 4 to APNU’s 8 seats suggested that there is significant dissatisfaction among the latter’s traditional supporters and that when there is not an overarching national threat, there is a place for independent local actors in dominant ethnic constituencies.