Political coalitions which succeed in unseating incumbents develop for any number of reasons and their acceding to office is particularly dependent on the mood of the populace at that point and the circumstances in the country as a whole. When the AFC decided to join with APNU to contest the 2015 general elections it was a momentous occasion unseen in import here since 1964 and all the more unlikely as the AFC itself had asserted that joining up with the PNCR – the main force in APNU – would transform it into ‘dead meat’. This argument had been made by party leader Mr Khemraj Ramjattan just over three months prior to the signing of the Cummingsburg Accord between the two parties on February 14, 2015 for a joint slate. It was a frank recognition that the PNCR’s past would be exploited by the then ruling PPP/C to claw back support that the AFC had seized from it in the 2011 general elections and which left it without a majority in Parliament.
Whatever reservations the AFC held about joining forces with APNU were likely trumped by the recognition that if the two parties contested separately the PPP/C could win the presidency again because of the plurality rule even if it meant the PPP/C governing without a parliamentary majority as it showed it was prepared to do in 2011. The AFC then agreed to ally with APNU and the Cummingsburg Accord was birthed. The coalition triumphed by the slimmest of margins, amounting to less than a seat but ended the 23-year reign of the PPP/C which had become unaccountable to the people and around which there were unending questions about corruption and cronyism.
Twenty months of the APNU+AFC coalition’s term have elapsed and there have already been numerous questions about patently poor governance, corruption and whether the AFC has simply been subsumed in APNU and has little to no influence in coalition decision-making.
On Saturday, January 28, the AFC will be convening its National Conference at which a new executive will be elected and the party’s performance and major current issues will likely be discussed. Having entered high office in an alliance with APNU and holding senior roles in Cabinet and 12 seats in Parliament, it is now time for the AFC to take stock of its performance and to cogitate on whether it has lived up to the public expectations of its role.
The AFC was birthed under the tutelage of Messrs Ramjattan and Raphael Trotman as a third force to wrest the country from the ravages of the PPP/C, PNCR duopoly. The ethos and philosophy of the AFC’s political groundings was to ensure that the deep ethno-political polarisation of the country was lessened and that the two major parties did not continue to dominate the politics of the country and sustain and complement the negative behaviour of each other. After solo campaigns in 2006 and 2011, the AFC discerned the limits of its appeal and power. By the time 2015 rolled around it was ripe for a strategic redirection and the case for an alliance with APNU became an easier option.
At its national conference on Saturday, the AFC has an obligation to the public to demonstrate that even though it is in office it remains a force for change from the enervating politics that has strangled the country for more than 50 years. While it will not be known how many people cast ballots in 2015 for the coalition because they were supporters of the AFC, it was known that in 2011, the AFC captured seven seats, and more than 25,000 votes and played a vital role in early elections being called in 2015 by the Ramotar administration. This was an impressive return for a third party.
One of the conundrums that the conference must deliberate on is whether its executives who are in key cabinet roles can properly be expected to champion the pioneering course that the party had set in 2005. The Prime Ministership is held by AFC executive, Mr Moses Nagamootoo while Messrs Ramjattan and David Patterson and Mrs Cathy Hughes also hold important portfolios. Collective ministerial responsibility requires that members of Cabinet publicly support all government decisions so there will hardly be any dissension by these senior AFC persons from key policy decisions made by the administration no matter how controversial and how they may jar with the AFC’s thinking.
Furthermore, if the AFC as a party was to find serious fault with the government and seek to criticise it, credulity would be greatly strained if this task fell upon Messrs Nagamootoo, Ramjattan,Patterson or Mrs Hughes. The solution to this problem would seem to be the election of an executive bereft of those members of the AFC who hold Cabinet positions.
Aside from that question, the AFC has a responsibility to pursue the role as a third force trying to reform the atrophied and debased political culture. Considering that it now has an even greater responsibility by virtue of its presence in government, it should set out the programmes and policies that it expects the administration to pursue for the remainder of its term. One would expect support from the AFC for wide-ranging political dialogue between the government and the opposition. One would expect the party would come out strongly in favour of constitutionalism and constitution reform, outlining the changes it would propose to presidential powers and other areas. The process for constitutional reform which has been entrusted to PM Nagamootoo has been disappointingly lethargic as if it is no longer of importance. Clean government and zero tolerance for corrupt behaviour should also be high on the agenda. Again, the code of conduct for government officials which had been promised by the coalition is still to be produced and this also comes under the purview of the PM. While the party can be gratified that the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) has been established, it is clear that the procurement process is riddled with irregularities and major changes are needed in legislation to insulate bid evaluation committees from bribery otherwise the PPC will simply rubber stamp corrupt transactions.
The AFC should also address forthrightly the range of poor governance decisions by the David Granger administration such as the murky arrangements for the D’Urban Park Project and the questionable spending of more than $1b on it.
In a press release announcing the formation of the coalition in 2015, APNU and the AFC had said “This is a historic and watershed political development for our country as this new electoral alliance moves to put Guyana on the correct path, where all Guyanese regardless of ethnicity can feel fully motivated to be proud of his or her nation and is afforded the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to the society while successfully caring for themselves and family.”
The coalition still has miles to go so that “all Guyanese regardless of ethnicity” feel motivated by the alliance and this is a defect that the AFC should also frontally address.
