Mr Aubrey Norton comes to the leadership of the opposition as far as the public is concerned without the level of experience which would suggest either impressive negotiating skills or a personality disposed to restraint in political affairs. His street credentials and impulsiveness have always been what defined him in the electorate’s eye, so the political cognoscenti watch with interest to see whether his actions will reflect this same temperament, or whether in the manner of Shakespeare’s Henry V he will demonstrate he had other more appropriate qualities lurking behind a wild exterior all along.
His initial forays into his new role do not bespeak great assurance that he has a full grasp of what is required. Following his election there he was telling Stabroek News that if the opposition did not get anywhere with its representations there could be a resort to political action and extra-parliamentary measures. Those representations in this instance related to plans to engage Speaker Manzoor Nadir about opposition-sponsored motions not making it on to the parliamentary agenda. No professional negotiator opens with a threat.
What is particularly unfortunate about this statement is that it falls into the stereotype of what APNU, if not Mr Norton himself, is perceived to represent in political terms. The Leader spoke at length about what the coalition was seeking to achieve, but that will mean nothing to citizens if at the back of it all it is believed that the opposition’s favoured modus operandi is street protest, particularly as in our case that usually involves violence. This is not to say that there are not occasions when peaceful protest does not have its place, but people, particularly Indians, have reason to fear the possible advent of street demonstrations organised by the PNCR.
It is true that Mr Norton and the coalition he leads are in a very difficult situation. In 2020 they overturned any progress the party had made up to 2015, and they have not helped themselves since by still insisting the results of the last election were a product of fraud, and by not recognising the current government. The PNCR with or without the AFC cannot win the next national poll and cannot win an election on its own after that either; democratic arithmetic is not in its favour, although conceivably the demographics could change at some point to allow for the emergence of yet another third party which potentially could hold the balance of power in the National Assembly.
Mr Norton’s task is to reinvigorate the party he leads by investing it with a sense of purpose as an opposition entity. However his intentions are viewed by the public, at least from what he has said on the record he appears to be applying his mind to the issue. At his first press conference since becoming Leader of the Opposition he declared his initial obligation as outlining to the Guyanese people what he envisages his constitutional responsibilities to be and how an effective and people-oriented National Assembly could be forged. As he pointed out, the reforms of 1999-2000 had not achieved what had been anticipated, and Parliament continued to fail to hold the government accountable.
His proposals for reversing this trend were to push for more sittings of the House; for public hearings on Bills and appointments, inter alia; encouraging motions from civil society and the society at large; the increased use of Private Members Day; and the funding of constituency offices for MPs along with research facilities for them. Added to that, the opposition wanted to hold the government accountable by reinvigorating and refocusing the powers of the Parliamentary Sectoral Committees, and to “resist all attempts by the Speaker of the House to undermine and restrict the opposition to freely present its views and positions through open debate, tabling of motions, and questioning of ministers.”
The National Assembly apart, he told the media that the opposition would ensure that NCN and other state media provided fair coverage of opposition MPs, increase the number of meetings with them and with all sections of society. Finally, he was quoted as saying, “As a leader of a party and coalitions of parties, we will present to the nation a superior alternative than the current regime in managing the affairs of the country. In this regard, we will work to ensure that the opposition not only opposes but proposes solutions and a vision for every aspect of national life in Guyana.”
No one would have too many quarrels with Mr Norton’s aims, but in a country like this with a history like ours one has to wonder whether he has put his mind to the strategies he will need to develop – extra-parliamentary action and the like apart – to attain them. He did concede that they could not be accomplished “by the stroke of a pen”, but we reported him as saying that he would begin the process of achieving them. He has to bear in mind, of course, that the coalition government did little better, and was no improvement where NCN was concerned. Political change will involve patience and a commitment to the long haul, in addition to serious work in the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Constitutional Reform, something he did not mention.
At a more technical level he displayed his inexperience and lack of political sense. When this newspaper first spoke to him after he became Leader of the Opposition and asked him whether one of his priorities was to meet with President Irfaan Ali, he responded: “I can’t say whether I will push for a meeting with the President. What I can say to you in keeping with the constitution is that I will honour all responsibilities of the office of Leader of the Opposition.”
While this was perfectly acceptable, by the time he got to the press conference, his approach had changed from one of meeting his constitutional responsibilities to one that any such talks should not be confined to constitutional matters, but should also embrace issues affecting both government and opposition. “Meetings with the President, should they occur,” he said, “must extend beyond the appointment of commissioners and judges. Meetings must also discuss opposition concerns about good governance and the abuse of political power …”
The electorate must have heaved a collective sigh of despair on reading this, because it is a formula for abandoning any hope of securing critical appointments such as those of the Chancellor and Chief Justice, or the Police Commissioner. How on earth does Mr Norton think it makes sense to encumber the agenda dealing with appointments – which one suspects will be contentious enough – with extraneous and even more difficult matters. Did he arrive at this because he saw it as a tactic to force the President to discuss issues beyond the constitutional when he had made it clear he would not talk about those with the opposition unless they recognised the legality of the government? If so, the coalition is just playing futile and misplaced games.
When this newspaper enquired of the Opposition Leader what would happen if the President refused to engage him on matters outside the constitutionally mandated agenda, he replied that President Ali was a “reasonable man”, but if the agenda was limited, then he would “deal with it at that time.” So what does that mean? Would he then walk out? As it is he is in danger of either being obliged to retreat, or else being blamed for the continued delay in making substantive appointments if he walks out. Up to now the government has been under attack for the obstruction, but it looks as if Mr Norton might be setting himself up to take the blame.
Contrary to what Mr Norton thinks, constitutional appointments are not in the same category as other issues, and cannot be dealt with at the same time. It so happens that the President cannot justify refusing to meet the Leader of the Opposition on general social and political topics, but the latter should get the constitutional matters out of the way first, and then take the head of state on in relation to his obduracy concerning wider discussions. It so happens there is not overwhelming support in the larger society for President Ali’s refusal in this respect, so Mr Norton has everything to gain by biding his time, and nothing to lose.
Lastly there were his inappropriate comments over the timing of any meeting with the President, who had merely been reported as saying that it would be in about two weeks’ time. Ignoring the adverb ‘about’ the Opposition Leader then ventured it had to be “on a mutually agreed date and time. So I don’t know that the President can just in two weeks … decide when we will meet. It has to be mutually agreed.” It goes without saying that the date would have to be mutually agreed, whether or not it takes place in about two weeks, and even the President would not think he could summon the Opposition Leader to his presence, totalitarian style. Mr Norton will secure no advantage by appearing petty.
