Dear Editor,

The recent reports, which suggest that the opposition political parties are open to forming a coalition to contest the 2011 elections, are welcome news. The opposition political parties should indeed consider the benefit of an alliance in the interest of moving Guyana forward. Results in recent elections in Trinidad and Suriname are examples of what can be achieved if political parties work together.

However, coalition discussions, which have taken place prior to almost every election have broken down largely on the question of who will assume the leadership. This is where personalities and egos take precedence over national concerns. So as usual it is expected that the question of who will be the preferred leader of the opposition alliance will dominate the discussion and has the potential to take up too much time. It is in the interest of the opposition political parties to get this aspect of the negotiation out of the way very early.

The discussion on leadership should be a very simple discussion. The party with the larger support base should become the leader of the coalition and provide the presidential candidate and the party with the second largest support base provides the deputy leader and thus the prime ministerial candidate. The CADRES poll, which many have deemed to be a reputable poll, has confirmed voters’ preferences in terms of political parties. In the opposition camp the PNC enjoys 31% of support and the AFC 26%. So the leadership position should be easily settled in the interest of more strategic concerns. A carefully chosen executive should come from within the smaller parties. The future of Guyana is too important for personality politics to burden the negotiations. Regardless of how we may feel about the PNC’s past history they still command the majority support in the second largest ethnic constituency.

There are mainly two important concerns that should occupy the opposition coalition discussion. One is the discussion on how the opposition will approach much-needed constitutional and political reform; and development of sound economic programme to finally take Guyana on the path to prosperity.  Two, how will the opposition deal with the voter malaise in the country. In my opinion the latter is the more important in any discussion.

Guyana is different from Trinidad and Suriname in many respects, but one difference is that the electorate is fully engaged in the election process in those societies. In Guyana the level of apathy and inertia has virtually crippled the political process. If one examines the result of the 2006 elections the conclusion will be arrived at that a coalition of parties will not necessarily guarantee victory at the polls. The combined opposition political parties were only able to garner 46% of vote with 31% of registered voters, resulting in a total of 29 seats. If this scenario were to repeat itself the incumbent party would still form the government. While the PPP/C won with 54% of the vote, they only got 37% of registered voters. The bottom line is that there is a significant difference between those who register and those who turn out to vote. 68 per cent of registered voters voted in 2006. Such a low turn-out would not secure victory for the coalition.

While the CADRES poll indicates further slippage in the support for the PPP/C, this does not mean an automatic transfer in support for the opposition. The performance of both the ruling party and the opposition have inspired little confidence in the electorate. This has largely contributed to the political malaise in the country. Therefore the combined opposition must begin very early to develop a programme that will address the level of voter turn-out.

There are two groups that an opposition alliance must target to increase turn-out. One is African Guyanese young people who stayed away from the polls in 2001 and 2006; and the second, is the growing number of Indian Guyanese disaffected with the PPP/C led administration, particularly in Region Six where the PPP/C support decreased by six per cent in 2006. No opposition alliance can be victorious without these two groups. Indian Guyanese support is crucial and is dependent on who is presented as the coalition leader. This is why, if the PNC assumes the leadership of the coalition, it must be strategic in who it presents as the presidential candidate. While Winston Murray, as some suggest may be the ideal candidate to attract cross-over Indian votes, his candidacy will not go over well with the PNC African support base, especially if the AFC presents Khemraj Ramjanttan as it is expected to do in accordance with that party’s rotation policy. Having two Indian Guyanese leaders at the helm will not be attractive to African Guyanese supporters in a racially sensitive political environment. The other reputable candidate the PNC can put up is Clarissa Riehl. In fact, I believe if the PNC presents a woman candidate this will neutralize the race factor.  MP Clarissa Riehl is a very respected parliamentarian and does not carry the baggage of the PNC’s past that would deter most Indian voters. By embracing a woman candidate the coalition will send a signal to the electorate that they are serious about reform and progress.

Yours faithfully,
Dennis Wiggins