“…. APNU and the AFC should lead a movement aimed at making significant constitutional changes ….. the approach should be constructed in a broad-based manner with a strong civil society presence. Each political party may then participate independently in the post-reform elections. …. I believe that if approached sensibly, such an arrangement has tremendous possibilities. It could severely limit the fallout the AFC fears from an association with APNU. It is also more likely to catch the public imagination and create a tipping point in terms of voter turnout to support the reforms” (“Opposition parties should lead a reform movement:” Future Notes, SN: 13/08/2014).
APNU has long signaled its commitment to some kind of pre-election arrangement with the AFC and at its party congress last Saturday, the leader of the AFC stated that it is “…. ready to enter into negotiations and to lead a pro-democracy alliance of progressive forces that should comprise civic groups, workers unions and political forces including even disaffected PPP leaders and members and not excluding the APNU…” (“AFC ready to lead alliance against PPP/C – Ramjattan:” SN: 08/12/2014).
Notwithstanding some skepticism, this stance by the AFC should be commended and viewed as a major step forward both politically for the party and from the standpoint of national development.
As the above Stabroek News report also noted, the present AFC position marks a departure from its historical position that any alliance with APNU would most likely cost it its Indian support and therefore should not be countenanced. Of course, not to show some willingness to deal with APNU would have also made it difficult for the AFC to expand and hold on to its African support.
In my assessment, most Africans believe that while such an alliance may not succeed, it certainly has the best chance of wrenching the PPP from office and allowing a new government the opportunity to make the kind of constitutional changes most rational people believe Guyana must now have if it is to make quick and steady progress.
Whether fact or fiction, it would be remiss not to at least note one possible trajectory of this AFC position. Since there is most likely some political strategisation here, we must watch carefully the unfolding of this process to ensure that it is not merely an attempt to placate the well known African concerns above and later deliberately scuttled as unachievable.
For myself, I believe such reversal would be foolish, for once placed on the table by the AFC, this proposal cannot be removed without giving the PPP a massive propaganda advantage. For example, the PPP will project the AFC as unprincipled and having never intended to form an alliance; accuses it of being unable to properly strategise and was thus pressured by rising PPP support to abandon its efforts or lose its Indian supporters; accusing the PPP of being unable to work with others while not being able to do so itself.
Yet since the objective of all those who wish to see Guyana flourish as a modern democratic society must be to hope that the parties succeed in this venture, it should also be the purpose of such people to ensure not only that the AFC does not lose any support but that the opposition together hold and possibly build upon what they already have.
In this regard, if the parties present their intention as a special purpose machinery, with the aim of achieving some generally acceptable outcomes, for example making constitutional changes, dealing with perceived governance misconduct and contesting post-reform elections as independent parties, the AFC will stand a better chance of mitigating the damage it fears and both parties will have a better opportunity to bring more people into their folds. It may also make negotiating a coalition agreement much simpler if the various constituencies come to understand the limited nature of the coalition agenda.
The most important issue on the Guyanese political agenda today must be the need for constitutional change. Both APNU and the AFC have long ago committed themselves to making some such changes. Indeed, at its recent congress, the AFC also outlined some of the changes it thinks should be made, and I will deal with these specific proposals in another article.
The PPP should be removed from office not only because it has been there too long but more perniciously, its long stay in office is based upon a virtually unchanging structural factor – racial allegiance. This creates a debilitating political environment in which major social actors must act as if the regime’s stay in government will be indefinite.
Until the glimmer of opportunity afforded by the 2011 national elections, of which the political opposition is now seeking to take advantage, this has been the political environment in Guyana. I have argued before that “Much of the concern about transparency, corruption, inefficiencies, etc, is the result of an unaccountability founded in regime longevity” (Future Notes, op cit).
Constitutional change is vital but there is a discourse that is of interest. After the politically inclusive and substantial constitutional process that resulted from the Herdmanston Accord around the turn of the century, it is merely disingenuous and propagandistic for Maxwell (“The 1980 constitution was not developed by the people:” SN: 05/12/ 2014) to claim that the present constitution is illegitimate and even to refer to it as the Burnham constitution simply because we failed to change some of the 1980 constitution’s more harmful provisions.
On the other hand, Mr. Lincoln Lewis’ belief that our political constitution is more-or-less adequate but that it is for us to hold our politicians accountable is pure humbug. (“Maxwell needs to explain his conflicting positions on the Constitution:” SN: 07/12/2014 and others).
The present constitution states: “WE THE GUYANESE PEOPLE, …. adopt these fundamental laws and make provision for their amendment to reflect future changes in our society…” and it is to the sovereign Guyanese people we must finally appeal if the constitution is breached or the necessary changes are not made.
But theory aside, there is no “Guyanese people”; the constitution has been mistakenly designed for a political/ethnic context that does not exist. Thus, by way of ours and the constitution’s commitment to majoritarian democracy, we allow the representatives of an ethnic majority to remain permanently in government, thereby undermining all social and political institutions – even those intended to demand and act if the constitution is not being upheld.
We must accept our own responsibility for what exists today and the next constitutional process should recognise Guyana as a divided society in which “one people” is an aspiration rather than a social fact upon which we can build important national institutions.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
