The Same Ole, Same Ole

Dec 11, 2011 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

Exactly a year ago, surveying the opposition’s preparation for the then upcoming elections, I wrote a piece, “New Politics or the same ole, same ole?” I said, “I frankly do not believe that the PPP can be unseated or lose its plurality and the Presidency – even with the greatest disenchantment in history from their traditional base – if the opposition remains divided.”
Well, the opposition remained divided; the PPP retained the Presidency and we have the same ole, same ole. The PNC/APNU is out in the streets busy snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. At the time, I surmised that “the PNC has moved further down the road of accepting the need for coalition politics and the commensurate need for compromises.” I questioned however, “Whether this is due to the demands of realpolitik or its avowal on the need for shared governance as a structural feature of Guyanese politics.”
Whatever the rationale, I had encouraged the AFC to join the united opposition. I noted that the AFC evidently saw the PNC as a “kiss of death” but asked “for whom or what?” I felt that the move would have reassured the ex-PNC supporters the AFC had attracted for its five seats, especially with the Indian Ramjattan now at the helm. To disavow the PNC in deference to putative Indian fears would be seen as pandering to stereotypes that had to be transcended. For those Indian fears, I advised, in “a coalition that includes the PNC…the historical, reflexive knee-jerk reactions … must be transcended – by concrete demands on the PNC if necessary.”
The point I was making was the PNC needed the AFC for “cover” but Guyana’s stability depended on the PNC being not seen as an “outlaw”. For its part, the PNC had strenuously kept out of protests even though egged on by extremists like Freddie Kissoon. One concrete demand that the AFC could have then made on the PNC was to abjure street protests in favour of parliamentary engagements. The AFC could have translated those demands into a pact because of its relative size. “The presence of the AFC within JOPP will reduce the inevitable temptations of the disequilibrium of size the PNC presently enjoys.” The hope was to lower the political temperature and return Guyana’s politics to a more even keel.
The AFC went to the polls alone, lost its African support, but through a fortuity of circumstances picked up Indian support. It is therefore with great disappointment, but not great surprise, I witnessed APNU’s resort to street protests for “reconciliation of Statements of polls (SOPs)”. In the phrase made famous (in Latin) by Burnham the protests are simply the occasion for war, not the cause of war. Reconciliation of SOPs is not going to catapult APNU over the PPP’s bulge of 26,000 votes. The AFC has announced they are generally satisfied with the results…they had agents in all the Region 4 poling stations. Why hasn’t APNU reconciled with AFC’s copies?
The war has several objectives. Granger wants to prove his credentials to the PNC’s traditional base and be free of Corbin’s sponsorship. The racist bottom-house campaign mounted by Granger’s ex-military cadre has worked to return its flock even as, ironically, the PPP abandoned that approach for the old PNC’s “bubble session” extravaganzas. Secondly, Granger is as convinced as Hoyte (with the other military heads at his side to confirm, if he had any doubts) that the PPP will buckle when intimidated. With the new demographics showing Indians below 37%, Granger has no compunction in risking AFC losing all its recent influx of Indians dissatisfied with the PPP. In fact the possible destruction of the AFC may be payback for their earlier rebuff. So what if Guyana’s polarization is now exacerbated? Politics is trumps.
APNU’s talk about a “government of national unity” rings hollow. We’re supposed to follow General Tito’s bloody and disastrous folly in Yugoslavia and have “unity” through the barrel of a gun? My old friend Rupert’s stark warning last Friday at Stabroek Market was more fitting of a fishmonger than a Guyana Scholar: “We must arrive at a point either they yield to a government of national unity or we close Guyana down.” What happened to the opportunity to performatively create that unity in parliament through the majority the electorate has delivered the opposition?
The AFC is still in a position to influence the PNC/APNU away from the road of adventurism. APNU speaks blithely of having a “majority” in parliament. It doesn’t. It needs AFC’s vote. Mr Granger cannot be given a blank check, simply because he guaranteed a victory to his supporters to motivate them to vote. He is not “President Granger”, as he coyly allowed on Nation Watch last Friday. If not for the sake of a more stable politics and Guyana, the AFC should think of its survival. Neither needs the same ole, same ole.