It is no surprise to me that the legitimacy of the no-confidence vote is being challenged, led largely by the PNC section of APNU. The leaders of the minor parties were given personal privileges of 40% weight that far outstrips the 10% to 12% of votes they won. I am not saying that the 10% votes is without significant value. The PNC would not be in power without these votes. Indeed, there is a dominant branch of economics that says value is created on the margins.
However, the minor leaders from AFC, JFAP and WPA were expected to surrender policy space to the PNC since they were rewarded with personal privileges. They are at the intrinsic level careerists. Therefore, crafting a Cummingsburg Accord around some core policy principles was never on anyone’s mind at the level of résumé building and prados. Therefore, the members of the smaller parties are relegated to following the policies and dominant strategies of the PNC old timers who have launched a vociferous challenge to the legitimacy of the PPP-sponsored no-confidence motion. This was expected and to me reminiscent of the early steps of the destabilization strategies of the 1990s, starting from the moment the 1997 general election results were known – long before Roger Khan could be the PNC’s alibi.
Suddenly 33 is not a majority in a Parliament comprised of seats equivalent to the positive integer 65. Rumours of bribery are rife, just like the rumours of widespread drug dealing under the PPP, which no doubt provided credible reasons to fuel such rumours given one of its survival strategies in the long-term battle of tit-for-tat with the PNC. The PPP was baited into leaning left during the uprising (and after) and as a result it had no option but to rely on the way of the warlords as a dominant strategy. Some members of the security forces did not cooperate with the PPP government. Hence, the PPP turned to help from outside of the established institutions. In typical warlord fashion, those offering to stave off destabilization did so to further their dominant strategy of illegality. Note, I am using the term dominant strategy because it is an established solution method from game theory.
