It appears that circumstances have finally got the better of Mr David Granger and pushed him towards radical action. He has given the president an ultimatum for his minority government to straighten up; become respectful of the parliamentary majority and of APNU, which won some 140,000 votes at the last election, or be prepared to face every possible kind of legal mobilisation.
Mr Granger has at his disposal some 200 kinds of nonviolent protest from which to choose (http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/resources/nonviolent/methods.php), but given his training, he must know better than all of us that if the time set by his ultimatum expires without positive action, his supporters will expect some consistent and significant responses until his demands are met, one party gives way or circumstance again intervene.
In short, if he intends this venture to be credible, whatever strategy or tactic he already has or intends to deploy cannot simply be writing of letters, meeting foreign embassies to explain his decision and more meet-the-people forays. He can be assured that the resident diplomats and their governments already appreciate his difficulties and his constituents have been living with them.
Rather than continuing my consideration of various shared governance proposals this week, I will use this space to make what I believe to be some timely comments on a few matters related to APNU’s ultimatum.
Many – even sympathisers – have wondered if, given the existence of a no-confidence motion, this was a good time for APNU to be giving ultimatums about the holding of local government elections, and the PPP/C claims to have detected ambiguities in a context of multi and possibly conflicting demands.
Mr Granger’s ultimatum came out of the blue and although I welcome this new radicalism, I detect a level of political competition at work in the APNU camp. When it comes to elections, APNU and the AFC are in political competition just as the PPP/C and the AFC are in the struggle for votes.
The non-confidence issue has gained traction, but it has done so largely as an AFC issue with APNU appearing to be grudgingly and reluctantly falling in line. APNU must attempt to take back some of this ground by developing and deploying its own initiative to remove the perception that it is coat-tailing.
So Mr Granger has decided to attempt to kill two birds with one stone. If properly designed and implemented, the ultimatum can provide a dynamic strategy right to the next elections and could also take care of the perception among many of his party members that he is not sufficiently proactive against the PPP.
Yet, Mr Granger must know that it is one thing to give ultimatums and another to enforce them. Since the PPP is most unlikely to meet his demands, as I see it, to succeed Mr Granger will have to heal the fractures in his own party, which appear to involve some of his most dynamic people.
Further, the competition between the AFC and APNU means that most likely the new elections will not be transformative. However, I make the same recommendation I made a month ago on a related matter. In terms of personnel and operations, this recent APNU approach should be constructed in a broad-based manner with a strong civil society presence. (Opposition parties should lead a reform movement 13/08/2014)
The PPP/C talk about the ambiguity/difficulties contained in a context where an ultimatum has been given and a con-confidence motion is before parliament is no more than the usual PPP/C delaying tactic intended to buy time by involving APNU in a long-winded meaningless discussion. The no-confidence motion came before the ultimatum and all things remaining equal should be given precedence.
What is surprising is that the PPP/C is proceeding as if unaware that all of its manoeuvrings (vacillations over why local government elections cannot be held, its obvious fear of a no-confidence motion and now its bickering with the Elections Commission) are indicating to its supporters that it is fearful of any form of elections and that this can sap their confidence and more importantly the confidence of its grassroots workers.
En passant, on the quarrel between the PPP/C and the Elections Commission, my advice to the opposition is that when the PPP/C starts to make a huge, seemingly contrived, song and dance about the possible negative consequences likely to befall it as a result of activities taking place in any institution, that is precisely the time when one should become most fearful and vigilant about one’s own interest in and around that organisation.
The PPP/C is in the dilemma it is today in relation to the holding of local government elections not because it did not have an alternative but because of its cavalier attitude toward the rule of law that prioritises its own interest, which is to control every aspect of Guyanese political life it possibly can.
If the party had proper respect for the constitution and the law it could have adopted a strategy similar to the one adopted by the PNC after its defeat in 1992.
It could have supported elections in which local civic persons and groups, instead of political parties, were encouraged to participate. This would have allowed it to maintain a significant level of influence in its traditional constituencies but would also have significantly camouflaged any loss of support. Indeed, it might have prevented such loss by exhibiting different thinking and broadening and energizing the party base at the local level – precisely where it places the blame for its 2011 loss.
Furthermore, the alliance it now wants to build could have been presented as a natural outcome of newly tried and tested ways of doing business.
The PPP/C talk about existing ambiguities is humbug. It is in the difficult constitutional positions it is largely because it believes that the law is a convenience of the party. Thus, its circumstance did not create the political exigency for it to think differently: out of the box.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
