Dear Editor,
I write this letter fully aware of the political implications and the accusations which will follow from what I consider a bold attempt on my part to draw to the attention of the African community and the nation, the danger that is inherent in the ‘no-confidence motion’ which has been presented and is expected to be passed in Guyana’s Parliament thereby forcing the country into general and regional elections some time soon, without the most critical and necessary constitutional changes being put in place.
My concern is that while these important political developments are taking place there is no African organisation, political or cultural that is publicly addressing the pertinent question of whether elections at this time, without constitutional reform is in the best interest of Africans and the nation. In the absence of this discussion African people have become prey to political forces whose primary interest is contesting elections which don’t necessarily have African interests and the future of its people as a major concern. In the past the role of providing political leadership on important matters like elections was not left only to political parties. The African Cultural and Development Association (ACDA) was vocal on these matters. However, with the loss of that organisation’s political activism, the African community is now more vulnerable and unprepared for the challenges and consequences of new elections under the old winner-take-all political arrangements.
Our national political parties are doing what they were formed for, that is to engage in competitive election politics. In the process they are prepared to disregard the nation experience of the results of 60 or more years of debilitating party politics. As a nation we are now more divided than ever. This weakness in the body politic has made us easy pickings for the old and new economic plunderers who have descended on the country. In collaboration with high state officials they now rape and control the commanding heights of Guyana’s economy.
In the African community, the no-confidence ‘fever’ has emerged as a necessary and to some, the only available political instrument to unseat a vicious political entity. This fever has the propensity of becoming a political epidemic, with dangerous consequences, before and after the elections. Let me be frank and say that I believe this support for the motion among the masses is not well thought out. It is one of political desperation propelled by the need of a large body of people to find relief from conditions of social and economic degradation heaped on them by the PPP/C party and government. They are hoping that early elections will result in the defeat of the PPP/C and the emergence of a new government, which will be more responsive to their problems and needs.
The political, economic and social dilemma of Africans in Guyana and the ethnic and political reality have left African people clutching at political straws. This more than anything else is the motivation that is fuelling the support for the no-confidence motion. While I fully understand the motivational aspects, I am of the view that African leaders who support the motion will be engaging the elections with no guarantee that their expectations of their supporters have a reasonable chance of success. Guyanese have being walking that road for the last 22 years. Are we still incapable of learning the lessons of our history?
My contention over the years has been that given Guyana’s political reality, correct African politics is necessary to enhance national politics. On the other hand misguided African politics even when it is popular can be self-destructive, with negative effects on our community and the nation. The same is true for the politics of other race groups.
In the run up to the 2011 general and regional elections some of us in ACDA recognised the need for the organisation to hold firm to its historic practice of engaging the political process and providing leadership to our community on political and election matters. To demonstrate our conviction, we organised and conducted a number of public meetings in selected villages, putting to the people our views on the political possibilities of the elections and focusing on the fact that these elections were taking place in the UN designated year for “Africans” which had mandated governments worldwide to address Africans’ social, economic and political concerns. We also advanced the positions that the African political leadership should declare that we are participating in the elections in a new way – that we rejected outright, winner-take-all politics; and that win or lose, we will fight for shared governance. Our campaign came to national and international attention as a result of the hysteria created by pro-government forces over my statement made at the first meeting at Beterverwagting (BV) where I stated that ACDA had come to that village to read the “riot act.”
Our advice was ignored by the political leadership. Opposition political parties participated in the elections and the result is now history. Guyanese were forced to accept the results of the elections, and the political opposition having a one seat majority in the parliament and the minority party, retaining the executive. This arrangement we were led to believe, offered us salvation. Today we know better – it did not. Ironically, we are set to once again repeat the same mistake we made in relation to the last elections. The present political system, given the known advantages of the ruling party and the inability of the opposition to monitor
elections, makes it almost a foregone conclusion – that the will of the rulers is likely to prevail to the disadvantage of the opposition and their supporters.
I will continue to argue that it is political suicide for the African leadership in Guyana to contemplate entering another election without first winning the struggle for constitutional reform to ensure shared governance after the elections or, at the least, a return to a system that allows parties – as is done in other countries – to enter into a coalition arrangement after the elections to form the government. I wish to reiterate what the present situation is: once the PPP/C wins the plurality they get the presidency and the right to form the government and they can achieve this feat by one vote more than the other contesting parties.
The failure of the opposition, particularly since the 2011 general and regional elections to wage any struggle for constitutional reform (and this becomes more difficult to understand when it is realised that the parliamentary committee on constitutional reform is chaired by none other than the Leader of the Opposition) and shared governance, has allowed the PPP/C to find refuge in its old position that shared governance can only be achieved after trust is built between the parties. Clement Rohee, the PPP/C party General Secretary recently made this point when he announced that has party is exploring a “national alliance.” I have in the past in the face of the PPP/C’s contention that trust is needed for shared governance, made the point that that position is merely a political ploy by the ruling party to buy itself time. Nothing has changed in the present equation.
The PPP/C is now blaming the majority opposition in the National Assembly particularly the David Granger led APNU, for the country’s present political crisis. This accusation is purely self-serving since it fails to take on board the fact that the PPP/C has not demonstrated an enlightened position which recognizes the fact it had lost the majority in the 2011 elections. Political maturity post-2011 elections required that it offered the opposition the option of joining it in government. Instead, that party chose to go down the slippery slope of running a minority government. In making that choice the PPP/C forced the majority in parliament to do what it did. But in the PPP/C’s paradigm they are blameless. They have refused to accept political responsibility for their actions and they are devoid of self-criticism.
In all of this the political opposition has not been blameless. The mistakes the opposition has made was first, to refuse to initiate/join the struggle after the elections for shared governance; and secondly to give their supporters the erroneous impression that the so-called new dispensation offered hope that would lead to economic and social benefits for them. The opposition’s political miscalculation was to underestimate the PPP/C leadership’s ruthless political culture of pretending to be reasonable while it was in fact hell bent on practising hard ball politics. The ridiculous ease with which the PPP/C conned the opposition into indulging that party’s propensity for meaningless dialogue underscored how naïve the leadership of the opposition has been. When the political opposition entered into dialogue with the PPP/C which was not time bound, it signalled to the PPP/C that they were willing cannon fodder to the PPP/C’s big guns. The PPP/C’s success over the last 24 years has been characterized by mastering the art of not conceding anything to the other side unless those opposed to them were willing to pay a high political price. What in a normal democracy people can achieve by making demands to the powers that be, in Guyana under PPP/C rule, it has become a life and death struggle for demands to be met.
Having said the above I am prepared to urge, even at the risk of political isolation and condemnation of myself by my detractors, that in spite of the popular support among opposition constituents for the no-confidence motion, the opposition leaders should take advantage of the public interest created by the motion, bite the bullet on this motion, and begin a massive mobilisation of their supporters for constitutional reform before elections.
In closing, I wish to recognise the contributions of two columnists, Dr Henry Jeffrey and Mr Ralph Ramkarran, who have been leading the struggle for constitutional reform and a political solution to Guyana’s ongoing crisis post 2011 general and regional elections. It is unfortunate that their voices of reason seem to be falling on deaf ears.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
