Political relations in countries such as Guyana never cease to surprise. What at first appeared to me only a political ruse by the PPP/C to save face has been transformed into a significant problem which, if a political solution is not quickly found, is likely to undermine the entire programme of the new government as we go forward.
It would be a huge mistake to equate winning government and holding office with successfully ruling when 49% of an agitated ethnic population stands in opposition. Confronted and frustrated by a not dissimilar reality after winning more than one elections, the PPP chose the option of political dominance, the deleterious consequences of which the new government has inherited, compounded it seems by other negative issues now arising.
Notwithstanding these obvious threats, I detect in the general euphoria of winning much talk about the victory reflecting some kind of national ethnic coming together. I am afraid that if this is so, it is only in the form of so far unfulfilled elite commitments. Experience leads me to strike a more sober note for false diagnosis usually leads to inappropriate remedies of which Guyana has already had more than enough.
To avoid any misunderstanding, let me remind that after the 2011 elections I wrote, ‘When a small but meaningful number of Indian voters chose to cast their votes for the Alliance For Change and others not to vote at all rather than vote for the PPP/C, they opened …. ‘a mammoth possibility for national renewal.’ They …. should be applauded for providing us with the best developmental opening in our political history’ (AFC and its Indian supporters have presented best development opening in Guyana’s recent political history (SN 07/12/2011).
As we know, the PPP squandered that opportunity. Just last week I hoped that, ‘A win for the APNU/AFC coalition would be a positive indication that the political dynamics in Guyana have shifted significantly. If the PPP/C does not win with the level of ethnic agitation it descended to, politically Guyana will have arrived at the door of liberal democracy.’ But sadly, I was wrong!
If in 2011 recognition for creating an opportunity went to those of Indian ethnicity, in my view this time around it must go to the Africans.
We need more detailed results and analysis to be certain, but on my reading, much of the increase that accrued to the coalition resulted from the enhanced participation of ethnic Africans voting for their traditional party.
There can be little doubt that Africans were mobilised as never before. The numbers for Regions 10 and 4 – in which they predominate – extrapolated countrywide would tell the true story. Indeed, as predicted in this column, it is only in the regions where those of African ethnicity predominate that the PPP has not benefitted significantly from its ethnicised/militarised political campaign.
As in the 2011 elections, I am not arguing that other ethnic groups did not contribute to the winning. But in my view it is the near total mobilisation of Africans for their traditional party that has largely been responsible for bringing the coalition to government and why this occurred will be pursued in another discourse.
What the emphasis does indicate is that the ethnic political dynamics have not substantially changed and neither has the structure of governance, which has reverted to its pre-2011 mode.
When PPP disgruntlement is added to this kind of ‘ethnic referendum’, the path to grow, develop and unite this country for those who now take office is quite bedeviling. Two decades in government might have tempered the PPP somewhat, but I would not wish upon this country a bitter PPP standing outside the official political system determined to undermine.
Furthermore, notwithstanding genuine commitments to openness and participation, the existence of persistent disruptive conditions that undermine all that the leaders and government want to achieve usually brings to the fore our most primal instincts.
Even if disruptive events such as squatting opportunistically arise when community leaders turn a blind eye and perhaps even encourage them, the nation suffers and the first reaction of those in authority is to attempt to quell them by law and force. But in politically divisive conditions rarely do such approaches work, even where the security forces are sympathetic to the rulers.
Confronted by not dissimilar conditions, when the PPP became frustrated it sought to undermine and destroy the opposition and to dominate the political relations of the state. As we now know this also did not work as the only real answer is a political solution.
I congratulate President David Granger and APNU+AFC on their victory and am somewhat contrite if at this period of great rejoicing for at least half the country I present a rather daunting political scenario. But I believe that it had to be done even as one takes succour in the president and his party coming to office with strong commitments to constitutional reform particularly as it relates to the sharing of executive authority.
In this context, even if former president Donald Ramotar feels hurt and cheated, in the interest of Guyana he should eschew the conventional PPP position of permanent struggle to fight and win. He should take the opportunity afforded by the present quarrel to negotiate the personal security problems of his party’s leadership and more inclusive governance arrangements. Utopian as I am, I believe that beginning such talks does not necessarily preclude his taking his party’s grievances to court.
If a solution to the standoff between APNU+AFC and the PPP is not quickly found and the political environment deteriorates in the manner I believe it could, the outcome is anyone’s guess. Let us all hope that the new government does not allow the present opportunity for this country to fulfill its vast potential to evade us yet again by – à la PPP – taking the wrong fork in the road.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
