People’s Progressive Party (PPP) General Secretary Clement Rohee was yesterday tight-lipped on who the ruling party is engaging to formulate its touted “National Democratic Front” alliance.
At the party’s weekly press briefing, held at Freedom House yesterday, Rohee baulked at questions by Stabroek News about the premise of the alliance, including whether it is intended to reinvent the Civic component of the ruling alliance and whether it was to be seen as an overture to the two opposition parties, APNU and the AFC.
Rohee, however, accused the Stabroek News of creating confusion and maintained that the party’s message was very clear to the general public.
Observers have stated that the party seemed to be initiating the move to reinvent the Civic component—with which it has contested every general elections since 1992—before new general elections are called. It is believed that the PPP is readying itself for general elections before the opposition has the opportunity to pass a no-confidence motion against the Donald Ramotar-led administration.
At last week’s press briefing, Rohee had said that the basis of the alliance was to advance the party much like the Civic component had.
But up to yesterday, he was not prepared to identify the stakeholders that have been approached by the party to form such an alliance.
Instead, he said the PPP had its own means of getting its message to the public and cited bottom house meetings as an example. He added that if persons really wanted to know what the party was talking about they would seek out such venues.
When pressed by members of the media, Rohee said the PPP has not yet reached a stage where it was open to discussions with the opposition parties. However, he also said that the party at this stage was not ruling out discussions with the AFC or APNU but would not comment on whether the party would be seeking talks with either or both of them. Instead, he offered, “it is a slow process… you can’t force people into alliances.”
Rohee said that the party bases its alliances on principle and that the party was a principled party.
Meanwhile, Rohee refused to give the party’s stance on former party member Ralph Ramkarran’s suggestion that the country revert to a cabinet system of government with a prime minister as head.
Ramkarran, who is also a former Speaker of the House, in his weekly Conversation Tree column, argued that “our constitutional system has been damaged by the attachment of the presidential carbuncle to our Westminster system for no good reason other than grandiosity. It has sucked the lifeblood from a vibrant, cabinet system of government and imposed a commanding authority bloated with supreme executive power over compliant ‘advisers’ holding ministerial posts.”
As a result, he proposed “a cabinet system of government with a prime minister as head of government, subject to term limits, and a cabinet with the right to vote, not as advisers as at present.
The president would be a ceremonial head of state elected by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly. Essentially, this means returning to our Independence Constitution, which worked well until it was subverted.”
Ramkarran also advocated a return to the Independence Constitution and said that had it been applied with the 2011 electoral results, the ceremonial president would have been obliged to invite the leader of the party, which the president believes is capable of obtaining the support of the majority of members of the National Assembly, to form the government.
“Therefore, whichever party the president invited to form the government would have to satisfy him or her that it has the support of at least one other political party in the National Assembly. This would have forced the formation of a coalition government or at least forced negotiations by the party with one or more of the others for a commitment to support,” he wrote.
Rohee, who said he was not sure why the Stabroek News would find it necessary to make it front page news, noted that for such a drastic issue to be considered all parties would need to find consensus, since it would require a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly to effect the change to the constitution needed to make such a proposal a reality.
He, however, avoided any more questions in relation to Ramkarran’s criticisms and the press briefing was closed off. Rohee did note that to go back to the Independence Constitution would be highly unlikely as the parliamentary set up is gravely different from when the Constitution was amended in 1980.
