Dear Editor,
I refer to President David Granger’s interview with the Guyana Review, (October 2018) that was published in the Stabroek News edition of Tuesday, October 2, 2018, and captioned “No walk in the park”. This interview is probably the most extensive the Head-of-State has done since becoming president, and it offers the public an opportunity to read his views on pertinent issues relevant to the country, in the areas of politics, the economy, social and foreign affairs, and governance.
In an earlier letter in response to President Granger’s public polemics with Dr David Hinds, I made the point that I like that side of the President. Some comrades asked me to be more explicit and, in response, I pointed out that I would prefer to have the President publicly defending his positions and stating his disagreement with his critics, rather than him saying nothing with the resulting deafening sound of silence that follows. In speaking out, President Granger has given the nation a better understanding of his thinking on important national issues and this is an indispensable fact in nation-building. We don’t have to have an instant agreement, but what is important to note is, as the country evolves, there will be a trail of ideas littering the landscape, which, over time, their relevance and correctness will be validated, enriching the nation’s political culture in the process.
It is in this spirit that I am engaging the President’s position on his approach to representation in the local government elections. In the interview, Mr Granger said, “…and that is the reason why A Partnership for National Unity took a strong stand of democratic representation…I am formally against sharing out seats even within the partnership. I am not going to give WPA one seat, Justice for All one seat, Guyana Action Party, National Front Alliance…people must go to the electorate, they must go to the constituents…I am not prepared to encourage any sharing out of seats on any alphabetical basis…this party must get ten percent, this party must get two percent. That is not democracy, that is something else and I am not going to be part of it”.
Respectfully, the President’s understanding of democracy is questionable. The APNU is a partnership of five parties, based on an agreed charter spelling out the basis of the relationship. The President seems to be suggesting that he can or has changed this agreement unilaterally and for him, doing so is democratic.
The President appears to be confused on local government elections as against general and regional elections when he speaks about his attitude to allocating seats to member parties of the APNU. For the purpose of general elections, the law and the constitution require APNU parties to contest under one list. Given this reality, parties do not contest in their own names (PNC, GAP, NFA, JFAP WPA); they do so as a collective, hence APNU. After the election, seats won have to be allocated by an agreed formula. If the President is against this situation, he should fast-track constitutional reform and remove this deformation from the constitution.
In fact, according to Mr Granger’s description of how he sees the arrangements for the 2018 LGE, the claim that the APNU is contesting the elections as a block of parties is a fallacy. What, in effect, is the situation, is that the use of the APNU’s name is a deliberately designed ploy by Mr Granger and members of the PNC executive, to hide the fact that it is the PNCR which is contesting the 2018 LGE under the convenient guise of the APNU.
In relation to local government elections, the situation is different. The law does not prevent member parties of the APNU or the APNU+AFC coalition from contesting the elections separately. But if the parties decide to contest as a united group, then what is agreed to before the submission of lists on nomination day, is the size of each party’s representation on the slate – by this, I mean how many candidates each party will have in both the PR and Constituency aspects – and the percentage of the seats won in the PR contest to be awarded to each party in the group. The seats won in the Constituency aspect go to the candidates scoring the highest number of votes in each constituency. That cannot be changed unless the law is changed. I want to urge President Granger to try to understand the differences in the LGE and General and Regional Elections systems.
For the November 12, 2018, LGE, the APNU, and the AFC failed to reach an agreement for joint participation in the elections and are contesting separately in their own names. On the other hand, the five parties making up the APNU agreed to contest as a united group. Here is where Granger’s new sense of democracy is undemocratic and border on dictatorial behavior. Firstly, there is no agreement in the APNU, of member parties giving up their right to prior representation on the list for the purpose of elections. The President is entitled to his conviction on how he wants the APNU or the APNU+AFC coalition to deal with representation and seat allocation but these matters cannot be made unilaterally and baptised as being democratic. President Granger’s position is tantamount to him “wanting to have his cake and eat it”. I find the President’s steadfastness on his position as being very instructive. “That is not democracy that is something else and I am not going to be part of it.”
He seems to forget that this apparent undemocratic, “something else”, is what paved the way for him becoming President. More importantly, if he holds to his position, it excludes the possibility of a coalition ticket in the 2020 General and Regional elections.
In closing, I am suggesting here that there is an urgent need for the President to revisit his position, particularly in light of the above implications I have drawn to his attention. Or is it that maybe, just maybe, President Granger is now of the view that a coalition of parties to contest the 2020 General and Regional elections is no longer desirable.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
