As disruptive as it can be, the motion of no-confidence in the government lodged at Parliament by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo is well within the bailiwick of the adversarial form of Westminster governance that has been the country’s lot for more than half of a century of independence.
While the public will wait with bated breath to learn of the outcome of the vote whenever the motion is advanced for debate, an even more important feature of the standoff is the enduring fragility of the one-seat parliamentary majority that the government operates on and the obduracy in seriously addressing this.
The posthaste postponement of Friday’s sitting of Parliament reflects this tenuous state. The official explanation from the Government of Guyana was that “Given the submission of a Motion of No Confidence yesterday (Thursday), the Government felt it necessary and urgent to convene a meeting to apprise and brief all Members of Parliament”.
Did the government indeed have a meeting on Friday with all of its 33 MPs to brief them on the motion? Even some of its own ministers, including Vice-President Sidney Allicock appeared completely in the dark about the government’s intention and turned up for the scheduled sitting of parliament. Having been cognisant of the lodging of the Opposition Leader’s motion of no-confidence early on Thursday, the government had ample time that day to decide on the briefing of its MPs without causing the inconvenience to the parliamentary sitting that it occasioned on Friday. The late postponement of the sitting also cast the Parliament Office in poor light. It appears that the government was unsure of whether it would have been able to muster 33 votes on Friday or at least enough to outmatch the opposition PPP/C during the consideration of provisions for the constitutional agencies. A defeat in that area would have led to untold complications. Aside from the pure mechanics of the ability to pass bills or motions, the much bigger picture reveals that for almost seven years, the narrowest of margins has ruled what transpires in the House.
From 2011 to 2015, the Ramotar administration presided with a parliamentary minority pretending that it could still be viable without securing a deal with one of the other two parties in the House. What ensued was a period of heightened conflict and serious questions about whether there had been massive, unapproved expenditure that could still present legal jeopardies for the officials involved.
When finally presented with a motion of no-confidence in 2014 in the name of current Prime Minister Nagamootoo on behalf of the AFC, the PPP/C government’s response was to prorogue Parliament to thwart any vote and then to call elections which saw it lose the Presidency by the same one seat to the pre-election 2015 alliance of APNU+AFC. It is quite ironic that the person who will likely be discharging the functions of President at the time the motion of no-confidence is heard is the same person who presented the confidence motion that eventually triggered early elections in 2015 that saw the end of the PPP/C’s tenure.
Despite the fact that a one-seat majority in Parliament could be vulnerable to any number of possibilities, the APNU+AFC administration has governed as if its slender majority is immutable and permanent. Aside from no attempt to reach an accord or even an understanding with the PPP/C on the broader issues such as constitutional reform and governance, which could have improved relations between the two sides, APNU treated its own coalition partner, the AFC shabbily. The AFC, of course, has 12 parliamentary seats assigned to it as a result of the Cummingsburg Accord which has seen a virtual hiatus since the government took office in May 2015.
Just when APNU and the government as a whole requires unity in the face of the illness of President Granger and the no-confidence vote by the Opposition Leader, it has succeeded in exposing the AFC as having no electoral clout on the Corentyne and therefore with little to bring to the table. It may explain why there was a hurried attempt by the APNU+AFC government via a photograph on Friday to state that “The leaders of the two parties jointly reaffirm that the Coalition remains united and strong”.
APNU’s refusal of an electoral accord with the AFC for local government elections clearly showed the determination of the PNCR to limit the influence of its coalition partners and this in turn has weakened the government and perhaps inspired the electoral gains made by the opposition PPP/C. With the illness of President Granger and the unknowns associated with it, coupled with the no-confidence motion by the opposition, the country could well be in for a period of instability and a power vacuum at a time when this can be least afforded given the impending budget and the need for major preparations for oil and gas in 2020 and, of course, general elections.
The next few weeks will give the country a sense of whether the APNU+AFC government can rise to the occasion.
