Our political culture has always afforded a newly installed political administration the prerogative of making promises, giving undertakings and levelling a slew of criticisms, frequently decidedly carping ones, at carefully selected performances of their predecessors whilst those were in office. It is a time-worn political game. The circumstance of newness affords the new occupants of office that prerogative. There is no feeling of pressure arising from an immediate pushback by the populace to the effect that we-have-heard-it-all-before from the people, though the ‘honeymoon’ of hype and hoopla comes with a life span the length of which may, for one reason or another, vary.
And why not? It is an accustomed part of our never-ending (and even entertaining at times) political theatre. For the new incumbents the currency of bragging rights is spent once it racks up its own tally of blunders and undelivered promises, the ‘honeymoons’ sometimes ending in swift and merciless meltdowns. Sometimes they persist. There is no consistent pattern here though precedent can bestow enlightenment and new incumbents, having previously been part of the game, anyway, can learn enough about it, over time, to exercise the requisite measures of choice and discretion in picking those aspects of its predecessor’s track in which to poke holes.
If they, the incumbents, that is, can make the right choices, their own honeymoon might be considerably extended.
What might appear to be altogether altruistic criticisms by new incumbents of particular aspects of their predecessors’ track record, nothing here is ever devoid of political motive. The more flaws you can find in your predecessor’s handling of a particular issue, the more breathing space you create for yourself. Take the electricity, for example. The new incumbents are only too well aware that if the public can be persuaded that the country’s current electricity woes are primarily a fault of their predecessors, then the expectation is that they would have bought themselves more time to fix those problems than might otherwise have been the case.
In both planning and execution this is a carefully choreographed form of political behaviour, its purpose being to enable the incumbents to put before the populace the warts and sores of its predecessor in the hope of securing a corresponding enhancement of its own political currency. When you are new in office the last thing you need is the spectre of the preceding administration’s accomplishments, such as those might be, haunting you.
The new PPP/C administration would appear to have chosen the APNU+AFC’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic as the starting point for the ‘dwarfing’ of its record in office. That became apparent when, in what was almost certainly one of his first public acts as Minister of Health, Dr. Frank Anthony delivered a veritable tirade, a feral blast at the Liliendaal Infectious Diseases Hospital, turned out by the APNU+AFC administration during its final stretch in office. “This hospital that was recently opened is a total disaster because it’s just a shell,” trumpeted the uncharacteristically animated new Minister.
COVID-19, possessing the enormous attention-getting traction that it does, there was no reason to stop at Dr. Anthony’s rant. So that last Friday, the country’s new President, Irfaan Ali followed up his Health Minister’s tirade with a more sober offering of his own. What the official reportage on the Tuesday August 25 “emergency multi-stakeholder meeting” suggested was that the new President is seeking to draw a line under what went before as far as addressing the COVID-19 challenge is concerned. On Tuesday, President Ali, according to the public statement emanating from the “emergency stakeholder meeting” alluded to what he called the element of “balance” in managing the virus, a balance which he is quoted as saying requires both “very strong protocols,“ and “enforcing the protocols.” While his assertion here can hardly be faulted, who can say without fear of contradiction that embedded in his pronouncement is not a political poke in the eye of his predecessors whose enforcement of the “protocols” had come under a considerable measure of public criticism.
In this the season of newness and the accustomed cat-sparring between the winners and those now separated from power there have been other outbursts that have had to do with what the new incumbents perceive to be the failings of their predecessors. Much of this is in fact a carefully choreographed performance, a convoluted give-us-time-to-fix-these-things appeal to the populace. If, as it has been inclined to do, history repeats itself, many of the flaws will remain un-mended long after the honeymoon has come and gone. That, however, has long ceased to be an issue. The whole affair is part of an enduring political game to which we have become eternal spectators. And the theatre season is still not over.
