By Andre Haynes
The AFC could still decide to participate in a broad electoral alliance that includes the PNCR, party executive Michael Carrington yesterday told a public forum that also heard that the joint opposition parties need to urgently engage communities on fundamental issues to mobilise for elections and beyond.
Speaking at a WPA-organised “Groundings” discussion at Rodney House yesterday, Carrington said the AFC’s decision against partnering with the PNCR in an electoral alliance could change. He noted that he was among the minority in the party’s National Executive Com-mittee (NEC) arguing for a broader coalition and he said more time is needed for the party to settle the issue. “At the present moment we are still talking and I think we will come over very, very soon,” he explained, while saying that there were others like him in the party who are still pushing for participation in a broad alliance since it is clear that no single party could win the election. “I don’t think the other parties should give up on us at this point of time.”
Carrington was among the few participants at the discussion who sought to contextualise the AFC’s decision, which was characterised as naïve and a rejection of national unity. Some participants suggested that the decision is not set in stone but is rather a statement of intent. The AFC’s NEC said it would neither ally itself with the ruling PPP/C or the PNCR, in what has been seen as a clear rejection of the main opposition party. Since the announcement, the PNCR along with GAP, WPA and the NFA have said they have decided to pursue a broad partnership.
‘The next best step’
WPA Executive, Professor David Hinds told the forum that notwithstanding the AFC’s “flawed” decision, the opposition parties needed to proceed with a coalition in order to prevent the country from sliding into chaos, citing past ethnic conflicts. “We think that it is very important at this juncture that opposition forces press as hard as possible to remove this government from power,” he said.
While he noted that an ideal solution would be a negotiated power sharing arrangement that would include the PPP/C, Hinds pointed out that the ruling party has turned its back on national unity. As a result, he said a joint opposition approach is the “next best step” towards securing a broader government.
However, he emphasised the need for the joint opposition alliance to “broaden its perspective away from a narrow electoral arrangement,” saying while elections are important there is need for an engagement with the people in all communities. “I think a joint opposition coalition will gain a lot of steam if it presents itself as a movement that is broader than an electoral alliance,” he said, noting the need for it to begin to deal with fundamental societal issues like poverty, public security, including the roles of the police force and the army as well as the influence of the narco-trade on politics and race. “The advantage of that is you are beginning a discourse in the community long before the election and that becomes a mobilising tool,” he added, noting that parties often wait until election season to engage the electorate. He said in the event that the approach fails, a critical mass would be mobilised to continue the struggle.
Hinds also noted the need for the opposition parties to engage with broad civil society forces as early as possible to build a large platform to move the country forward.
‘Only credible option’
Although the focus of the discussion was intended to be on how to move forward, the AFC’s decision prompted several strong reactions. WPA Co-leader Professor Clive Thomas characterised the party’s decision as “naïve” and “premature,” arguing that it was made on “a priori grounds” since no formal discussions had started on efforts to forge a partnership. He also said the decision ignored the possibilities of trying “to locate the opposition struggle” in the context of electoral and constitutional reform. “…The issue that would face the AFC is very different from the simple one of joining up a party in order to contest the election,” he said. “They would be engaged in a much deeper and broader struggle and the party has given no evidence that it has embraced those considerations as part of its making that decision, because it has not yet told us how struggle for constitutional reform would be best done on its own rather than in concert with the other parties affected by the nature of the constitutional arrangements that we have and the electoral system which we all have to participate in.”
According to Thomas, a partnership would necessarily be about power sharing and parties usually involved such movements are working to shift the power structure. He suggested that the AFC’s primary goal seems to be becoming the main opposition party since it cannot win an election on its own. However, he noted the view that coalition politics as “a necessary evil,” particularly in the context of being “faced with a power structure that would not shift.” He said, “In Guyana, there is no other credible means of changing the power structure apart from the unity of the forces against the existing structure of power. Even that cannot be assured success. Far from it. But it is the only credible option that exists.”
Thomas also faulted the AFC’s decision for not giving more consideration to the possibility that President Bharrat Jagdeo could seek a “Third Term.” He said such a move would project the view internationally that his administration is “a regime… founded on constitutional manipulation” while at the same time resulting in “unprecedented legitimisation of the opposition forces operating at the level of mass protest or demonstration.” He added that if Jagdeo successfully pursues a “Third Term,” the fallout within the PPP could see a “convulsion” of the party. In response, PNCR Vice-Chairman Basil Williams, who was also present, later stressed that the PNCR would not support a “Third Term” for President Jagdeo or anyone within the PPP/C.
