While it was being suggested at one point that the coalition arrangement between APNU and the AFC might not survive into the next election, it seems that an amended Cummingsburg Accord has at length been agreed between the two parties. The rumours of a split were stoked by the fact that the discussions were more prolonged than initially had been anticipated, possibly because, according to reports, there was a roadblock over the matter of the prime ministerial position.
It was three months ago that the two sides first indicated they would revise the Accord, saying they estimated the process would take approximately four weeks. It was a serious underestimate, probably because both parties in the initial stages felt they could hang on to strong negotiating stances. APNU – more particularly some in the central PNCR segment – was of the view that too much had been conceded to the AFC in the original Cummingsburg Accord, and that this should be remedied in any new arrangement. For its part, the junior partner maintained that it was in a strong position to insist on the same or even better terms.
The major test came over the nomination by the AFC of Mr Khemraj Ramjattan, the party leader, as their prime ministerial candidate. This was not an appointment which one infers President David Granger himself was prepared to entertain, never mind APNU. However, following a meeting between the two party leaders, this particular obstruction was negotiated, paving the way for a resolution of the other issues dividing the two parties.
At the time of what appeared to be an impasse, this newspaper had reported an APNU source as saying: “It is unrealistic, even to a political novice, that the AFC could get the same terms as the last accord. Quite frankly, I believe that they will have to be prepared to give up a number of their current ministerial positions in exchange for that prime minister post that they so desperately are pushing.”
SN had also quoted an AFC source as expressing quite a contrary view: “We in the AFC still believe that we can get the same terms as the last accord. Many persons say that we don’t have bargaining power because of our performance at the LGE [local government elections], but the LGE and the general elections are not the same. Is APNU willing to risk our numbers and go it alone? Look at the margin at the last elections and tell me if APNU can win alone?”
What seems to have emerged from the new agreement is that the APNU view as expressed by the anonymous source quoted above, has in a general sense prevailed. Mr Ramjattan has been accepted as the prime ministerial candidate, but the AFC has made concessions on other fronts. The current Prime Minister is Mr Moses Nagamootoo of the AFC.
It is understood, however, that in the event of the presidency becoming vacant for whatever reason, Mr Ramjattan would not become president. The parties had earlier agreed during discussions establishing the principles of negotiation that there should be no provision or action which would contradict the Constitution; both committed to adhering to its terms. Furthermore, President Granger had let it be known that any compact must be compliant with the Constitution.
As it stands, the Constitution requires that should the presidency become vacant, the prime minister would then become president. Now we have been down this road before. When Mrs Janet Jagan was president from 1997 to 1999, Mr Samuel Hinds was the prime minister, but he was not a member of the PPP. He belonged to the Civic grouping which had joined that party in contesting the elections of 1992 and 1997. Freedom House was not prepared to have a Civic president, and so when Mrs Jagan wanted to resign, there had to be a little exercise in musical chairs to ensure that did not happen. Prior to her resignation, Mr Hinds resigned the prime ministership, and Mr Bharrat Jagdeo was named prime minister. Then Mrs Jagan resigned and Mr Jagdeo became president, following which Mr Hinds was re-appointed prime minister. Have the AFC and Mr Ramjattan agreed to a similar shuffle should the coalition win the March election and at some point, a presidential vacancy arises?
The state newspaper reported that both parties concurred that under the Constitution, it was the president’s prerogative to assign ministerial portfolios, and that this was inviolable. However, that presumably does not prevent them from agreeing on ministerial positions in advance, which would have the imprimatur of the head of state. It was reported that the AFC was to be allocated five ministries, one down from the six they currently hold, and that the Agriculture Ministry would be reserved to APNU. Mr Noel Holder of the AFC is the present incumbent of that ministry.
As SN reported yesterday, the ratio for the apportionment of seats in the National Assembly is to be 70:30. Currently it is 60:40, reflecting the previous accord by which the last-named party was to have 12 parliamentary seats. This newspaper also reported that President Granger would decide on the list of MPs.
While it is generally acknowledged that it was AFC votes which brought the coalition to office in 2015, there is considerable doubt about how much electoral benefit the party can deliver to APNU this time around. It performed poorly in the local government elections after the larger partner cast it adrift to campaign on its own account, following a disagreement over the allocation of seats.
However, AFC Vice Chairman Catherine Hughes has argued that the principles to which the party is committed, such as reconciliation, an end to racial voting and winner-take-all politics, and constitutional reform, were not the subject of the local elections, which suffered from low voter turnout. As a consequence, the results were not indicative “of where the party stands or is standing on major issues of national development.”
While this may be true, the party has come under criticism for its performance in government, since it has not distinguished itself from APNU, and has supported all the government’s major policies such as the one in relation to the sugar industry. It has also made no move on any of the fronts mentioned by Mrs Hughes, including constitutional reform. As already said earlier, there is considerable doubt, therefore, as to whether the AFC can still command the support among the electorate it once did, more especially among those Indians who broke with the PPP in 2015.
It is for this reason, no doubt, that the more uncompromising elements in the PNCR saw little reason to make substantial concessions. For all of that, from what has been made public so far, APNU has not been ungenerous, whatever its doubts. In the end, presumably, the PNCR calculated that if it wanted to promote itself as having broken from the past and signal that it was now disposed to working in a coalition context, then it would need a real coalition. Even it will recognise that none of the other small parties which go to make up its alliance really qualifies as a serious partner in that respect. In other words, it may have come to the conclusion, however reluctantly, that the image it was seeking to cultivate could be unnecessarily damaged by a break with the AFC.
The Leader of the AFC was unquestionably happy about the new Accord. “You ain’t see me smiling?” a clearly elated Mr Ramjattan asked reporters rhetorically. Ms Volda Lawrence, the APNU negotiator, was more restrained, providing the politically correct answer. “[The] coalition has always been strong,” she said.