Readers of this column will know that it has continuously advocated coalition between the opposition forces as a possible and necessary condition for the removal of the PPP from government, and the institutionalisation of a more adequate national governance arrangement. The formation of the coalition between APNU and the AFC is, therefore, in my view a progressive step in the right direction.
But in my construct, the coalition is a means to the search for good governance in our ethnic and political context, and not an end in itself or simply a means to gain and hold political office.
Notwithstanding this, the first (but not the most important) task of the coalition is to win government, but this cannot be achieved by the mere fact of coalescing. Any unity must be bolstered by a creative strategy that must include a well-designed and time-constrained programmatic platform, and an innovative distribution of power positions structured to take advantage of the perceived political representative fissures in our society.
On both these counts, what the new coalition has presented to the public up to the time of writing this article is unsurprising and does not appear to me to be the most effective way of winning government from the PPP/C.
I not only supported the formation of a coalition but also believed that once the parties decided to negotiate, they could not afford to fail.
As I argued last week, regardless of the hyperbole coming from both sides as to their capacity to win the elections individually, had they been convinced that they could do so it is highly unlikely that the negotiations would have begun. Once they started the process, failure would have been too costly.
Assessing this, based upon their capacity to win power from the PPP/C, I developed a prioritised list of four possible outcomes: the one the parties have arrived at is about number three on that list.
I will discuss the list and the rationale underlying my choices in another column, but here I wish to discuss what I consider some important background considerations.
Since the way in which we conceive of any political issue is usually coloured by world views that have been variously developed, we hardly ever look at issues through the same lens. As a result, by its very nature, the democratic process usually throws up outcomes that do not mesh with our expectations and with which many tend to disagree.
But almost everywhere, democratic outcomes become somewhat more predictable because they are mediated, directly and indirectly, by significant levels of oligarchic control. I believe it was the political philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) who, in attempting to establish his ultra democratic “general will” of the people, sought to ban all mediating (what we may now call civil society institutions) from the political process.
The more transparent and open the political system, the less predictable are the outcomes and the harder it is for special interests to win the day. But Rousseau may have had a point: our natural self-interestedness coupled to the oligarchic behaviour that is a fact of modern political life makes democratic outcomes not only more predictable but also facilitates the organisational and individual appropriation of political life.
I had occasion before the last elections to commend APNU for being a democratic trailblazer because of the open manner in which it then chose its presidential candidate. But oligarchy has again won the day and that tradition has not been maintained.
Our political system is a hive of oligarchic control, and the political environment within which our oligarchs operate is an even more toxic brew of elite/ethnic controls/concerns that cloaks all kinds of self-interested decisions. The latter are usually constructed in closed sessions and then presented to the faithful for ratification through substantially manipulated avenues.
This is the operational context of the political parties that have formed the coalition, and as such, the agreements they reached need to be closely interrogated. But like the PNC during its long period in office, the PPP has become so disliked that anything that could replace it is viewed as progress in some quarters!
In normal democratic situations the discourse I propose here would be expected, but when our ethnic condition is coupled to perceived PPP/C behaviour, the mere questioning of the alternative is seen as counterproductive if not counterrevolutionary.
Yet, the mere existence of an alternative cannot ensure success and hard work is not a substitute for proper thought. Democratic political competition is always something of a risk but it becomes even more so when it is not rooted in a proper theoretical appreciation of one’s situation.
In my opinion, this is precisely what happened to the PPP/C in 2011. Consumed by hubris, it failed to properly assess and manoeuvre to suit its changing political circumstances. But as is usual in such cases the fault cannot lie with the leadership: the oligarchy is not usually wrong!
At the completion of the party’s assessment of what went wrong, the blame fell upon the lowly activists who did not work sufficiently hard.
The truth is that hard work cannot easily overcome faulty direction. You can walk as hard and as long as you wish to get to Berbice and will never get there if you set your direction towards Essequibo!
The mere existence of an alternative will not lead to success if it is not set in the proper direction, and we would be extremely foolhardy to depend solely upon the claims of self-interested oligarchies that the course they have taken is the correct one and all that all that is left for us to do is to work hard in their stated direction.
Smart work is necessary regardless of which direction is taken, but it would be downright irresponsible to not widely question the course that is set to determine the possibilities of our being successful in reaching the stated goals. Indeed, such an investigation and substantiation will help to build momentum within what should be a collective enterprise.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
