Dear Editor,
I write today to express my confusion regarding the enigmatic presence of the Alliance for Change (AFC) party in our beloved Guyana. Are they an opposition party like the People’s National Congress (PNC)? Are they a political party akin to the old United Force (UF)? Or are they perhaps the Schrödinger’s cat of Guyanese politics, existing in a quantum state of both until observed?
If the AFC were to fully embrace their role as an opposition party, we could expect them to adopt the grand tradition of saying “no” to everything with the enthusiasm of a child refusing vegetables. The government proposes a new policy? “No!” New infrastructure projects? “Absolutely not!” Improved healthcare initiatives? “Not on our watch!” This approach, while wonderfully predictable, would surely provide a spectacle as we witness the AFC opposing for the sake of opposition.
Conversely, as a political party—which, lest we forget, implies having actual policies and goals—the AFC might engage in the constructive activity of proposing alternatives. Picture this: instead of merely saying “no,” they would offer ideas, solutions, and constructive criticism. Imagine the shock and awe in the National Assembly as the AFC presents a detailed plan for economic growth or a comprehensive strategy for environmental sustainability. Such behaviour would be revolutionary, and we might even have to start taking them seriously.
One cannot overlook the potential for the AFC to continue its current path, straddling the line between opposition and political party like a tightrope walker with a penchant for indecision. This balancing act allows them to occasionally oppose with gusto while at other times offering vague hints of policy suggestions—just enough to keep us guessing but not enough to commit to anything tangible.
In this state of ambiguity, the AFC can enjoy the best of both worlds: the freedom to criticize without the burden of responsibility and the occasional dabbling in policy-making without the risk of being held accountable. It’s a brilliant strategy, really—much like being a guest at a potluck who brings nothing but complaints about the food.
In conclusion, whether the AFC chooses to be a staunch opposition party, a proactive political entity, or continues to dwell in the delightful limbo of indecision, one thing is certain: they will always provide us with ample material for discussion and debate.
Yours faithfully,
Keith Bernard
