Alliance for Change (AFC) Leader Khemraj Ramjattan says the party will go into the 12th Parliament with an independent voice but not break ranks with former governing coalition partner APNU as it believes a united front is needed against the PPP/C.
If there comes a time when the two cannot hold a common view on policy decisions before them in the National Assembly, the party will vote differently but Ramjattan does not foresee that happening anytime soon.
“A lot of people felt we were subsumed. That is utter trash. That is not so. The trouble is that it is a false perception. Ourselves and the APNU always resolved our differences,” Ramjattan told the Sunday Stabroek in an interview.
“As leader of the AFC, I am saying that it is good grounds for us working together as best as possible, united in getting out a government that I feel was involved in certain things…” he added.
Since it formed a coalition with APNU in 2015, the AFC has faced criticisms for what some of its supporters felt was its loss of independence.
Former APNU+AFC MP Charrandass Persaud had used this argument when he voted against his own party on December 21, 2018, in a historic move that saw the government fall in a motion of no confidence that triggered months of deadlock as the Granger administration used the courts to stave off the loss of office.
After finally agreeing to general elections on March 2nd this year, APNU+AFC was seen as preventing the declaration of a final result for months as more legal challenges and a recount of all the votes followed.
During that period, AFC executive and former Minister of Business Dominic Gaskin had expressed his dissatisfaction that the AFC did not condemn the activities of District 4 Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, who tried on March 5th to fraudulently give the elections to the former governing coalition, APNU+AFC, knowing that it had not seen, much less analysed, any of the Statements of Poll (SOPs) that suggested the win.
Ramjattan was asked about this and he said that he, too, did not see any of the SoPs and that it was APNU that controlled analysis of that aspect of the elections but he supports Gaskin’s independent views and stressed that Gaskin will “always have a place with the AFC”.
“I did not see them either, what were the SoPS, because the Region 4 numbers obviously …it was more or less in charge (of) by the APNU side and we were getting the results at the AFC office SoP by SoP,” he said.
‘Terrible things’
“Then when we heard from the international observers and the PPP and all of them making allegations, we too got concerned at our AFC office. I went down there [to GECOM’s office on Hadfield Street] to find out what was happening and I heard from both [US Ambassador] Sara-Ann Lynch and [UK High Commissioner] Greg Quinn, who walked up with me to the GECOM’s first floor and indicated that some terrible things are going on. I indicated that quite clearly they have to be remedied. When I came down to talk to some people, boss, everybody cussing me down that we rigging election…,” he said
“I decided to go back and indicated to [PNCR General Secretary] Amna [Ally] that there were problems and by that time a number of circumstances took hold and then an order for a recount. I am very happy there was a recount and it placed things in its true perspective. I am happy it came out what the figures were along with the irregularities and illegalities that had taken place. We will evolve into a better democracy because of those truths. Those truths coming out. All of us as political parties…will utilise the opportunity as well as a learning example and lesson,” he added.
But while he admits that the recount results showed a win for the PPP/C, Ramjattan, who was the APNU+AFC Prime Ministerial candidate, is adamant that it revealed “numerous irregularities and illegalities” that will be proven when the party files an elections petition.
“I am of the opinion that indeed those things are substantial enough and there are very good chances of us being successful in an elections petition. You can say I am biased. I was prime ministerial candidate for APNU+AFC and I will tell you that you can’t go wrong, because indeed I am a political animal that wants to support the APNU+AFC victory. But look at those things objectively, delete a Ramjattan from the process. What do you say in relation to 41 boxes that didn’t have the requisite documents…would you have disqualified those? …I believe that a High Court judge would want to ask a number of questions and would say ‘not credible at all’”, he said.
Observers have pointed out that those 41 boxes were counted on polling day in the presence of APNU+AFC agents with all of the documentation intact. No objections were raised that day. The boxes were scrutinised again during the recount and the ballots were found to be in order but the statutory documents were missing. There have been various reasons posited for this, including that Mingo’s office varied instructions at the last moment for how the documents should be packed.
Ramjattan said that the AFC will with its coalition partner challenge the results because it has “insurmountable” evidence that the elections were marred by several fraudulent acts.
Vote of conscience
As to suggestions that the AFC’s relevance on the political stage here has diminished, he felt otherwise.
“We have nine parliamentarians there. We have about 20 regional representatives across the country. Is that a dead party? You win in an elections 14,000 more votes than in the previous one …well if we dead then I don’t know how come we dead and we doing all of that. I don’t believe that at all,” he stressed, while arguing that the party is even stronger than before.
He pointed out that there will be no repeat of independent actions by single party members, as in the case of Charrandass Persaud, as both sides will work to resolve their issues before voting.
“We are part of a coalition and we will argue our positions within the coalition and we will come out with a unanimous position. We will have constant caucuses. That is how it is going to work, it is going to be collaborative. If we feel so strongly of a certain policy issue, we will tell the APNU and we will see how best we can resolve that. I don’t see that to be a big problem,” he said.
“If we can’t resolve we will ask for a vote of conscience and we will probably take an independent vote. If we cannot resolve it, it means it is unresolvable and then we will have to go our own way with relation to that vote but I hardly see that as happening,” he added.
He believes that the selection criteria for the AFC’s nine parliamentarians will guard against any other attempts by members to defect from the party’s position.
With former President David Granger as Head of the List, Ramjattan said that he [Granger] gave detailed criteria for the persons for parliament that the AFC will submit. In turn, the AFC used its highest decision-making body, through a democratic process involving members countrywide, to compose its list of nine.
“The nine parliamentarians were chosen by a most democratic process which was the National Executive Council (NEC). What we did was, we considered the criteria as adumbrated by the Representative of the List David Granger [that there be] women balance, ethnic balance, generational balance, capacities, meaning qualifications – a first degree, second degree whatever, and genuine degrees too…,” he said taking a jab at PPP/C President Irfaan Ali, who was dogged during the election campaign over allegations about his academic qualifications.
While those persons are to serve five years, Ramjattan said that some persons have indicated that they will not serve for the entire period and proposed a rotation system. That suggestion is still being looked at, he explained.
“The confirmation of the rotation is still yet to happen. At the personal level, I do not believe in that rotational system. I feel that parliamentarians must serve their five years but there were those in the leadership who said they would rotate. You would want parliamentarians that would have worked hard to get in there and duly elected there to serve out that term and they would become more mature leaders. If you had voted them in for purposes of a five-year term you want them to be there for five years,” he said.
Ramjattan dismissed suggestions that Granger himself can unilaterally have members of the AFC pulled, given his position as leader of the list.
“Mr. Granger as leader of the list can’t just pull. I don’t think, knowing the personality too, that he is ever going to do that. He can as a result if you do something egregious. If you go and misbehave yourself and tending towards a Charrandass again, you got to know what you doing. I am deputy leader of the list too and if I see that happening, I want to go tell my leader this is happening with one of my nine and we should do something about it. I don’t think that is going to happen again and think we have nine that is not going to be egregious, whether is a variant of a Charrandass or a Charrandass variant,” he said.
The AFC Leader said that while other smaller parties in the coalition were ousted because they could not show their worth, the AFC has held its own and the elections result is evidence of this.
He does not blame Granger for setting criteria on parliamentary representation for the small parties as he reasoned that it was the “reality of politics” that parties have to prove their worth in forging allegiances and partnerships.
“It is always going to be a hard choice that has to be made by the Representative of the List. When we had argued the Cummingsburg [Accord] number two he had made it quite clear that we must be in a position to win 63,000 votes. And we indicated to him how we intended to win that. It is important that we indicated. We won an elections with 204,000 in 2015 and we won almost 218,000 this time around…there was 13,000 more this time around. I think we managed to impress on him we got our ballots,” Ramjattan said, although he made clear that Granger’s rationale should be taken up directly with him.
To the other parties, he said that he knows that they are disappointed but with politics comes hard decisions.
“Knowing Keith Scott and the others, I know they would be disappointed by this…but that is the hard reality of political leadership. And if objectively you want to make the call, you have to do it. That is the life that we political leaders live. You have to make the call, and when you make the call a lot of people will say you are discriminating,” he said.
“Guyana is a young democracy and a lot of people are critical of political leaders but they themselves don’t want to be in political leadership or enter the realm. Parrot love to tell donkey how to bat the ball but parrot don’t want go to the crease. That is the problem we get hay. Hit the ball donkey hit the ball. But when donkey say get your backside hay and bat parrot don’t want guh come but we will parrot all the criticisms. I have lived with that since I was a PYO (PPP youth arm) leader. The young politicians will come to realise these are the decisions you will have to make,” he added.
The AFC was formed in 2005 and seized the limelight in the 2006 elections when it captured five seats in Parliament and became the biggest third party in decades. It won seven seats in the 2011 elections capturing votes from both of the main parties and independents. It then joined with APNU for the 2015 election and helped to unseat the PPP/C which had been in office for over 22 years.
