Latest update March 22nd, 2025 3:56 AM
Aug 04, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
This week we continue our examination of the decision of the Alliance For Change (AFC) against entering at this stage into any pre-election alliance with either the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) or the People’s Progressive Party (PPP).
Last week it was argued that this decision was consistent with the objective of creating a new political culture rather than simply aiming for a change of administration.
It was also pointed out that the history of political alliances in Guyana and the projected role that the AFC would play in any government emerging from such a process would have been more harmful to the long-term development of the party. Practical considerations would have also played a part in the decision of the AFC to be cautious about a pre-election alliance with the main opposition.
In the CADRES polls, the AFC was running not far behind the People’s National Congress Reform in terms of popular support. While the poll did help to generate greater interest in a Big Tent coalition to unseat the PPP at the next elections, it was discovered that the poll itself had what was described as a design bias. The sample chosen for the poll was not representative of the ethnic mix of the population. There was a disproportionate number of Guyanese of African origin in the poll, and this was what was deemed the design bias.
Even with this design bias poll, the PPP still managed to enjoy a popularity rating of 38% and enjoyed this rating after a protracted period when the PPP was coming under severe criticisms and examination over its management of the country.
If the PPP, in a period when the ruling administration was being besieged by so much controversy especially in relation to the inking of deals and the awarding of contracts, could still obtain a popularity rating close to 40%, it means that when the PPP begins to kick in its election campaign it will extend its rating easily to over 50%.
The PPP draws the bulk of its support from the East Indian community and the PNCR from the African Guyanese section of the population. In the CADRES poll sample, the percentage of Indo-Guyanese was far lower than the national demographic profile and the percentage of African Guyanese was above the national demographic profile. This design bias would have skewed the results in favour of the PNCR.
However, despite the poll’s methodology underestimating the ethnic grouping from which the PPP draws its core support, the ruling party still enjoyed a popularity rating of 38%. The unavoidable conclusion is therefore that the PPP is not likely to lose the next elections.
The AFC therefore may have opted for the more realistic goal of becoming the next main opposition party, and in the interim, work towards improving its image and attractiveness towards the electorate by forging alliances with like-minded individuals and civil society groupings which can widen its support base and increase its insertion into the middle class.
This more realistic goal would also be more comfortable with those within the AFC who are opposed to Khemraj Ramjattan becoming the party’s next presidential candidate. It would mean that he would lead the AFC into the next elections; he would also become the Leader of the Opposition and eventually have to give way in 2016 to Raphael Trotman when the AFC would be in a stronger position to challenge the PPP and perhaps win the presidency.
Mar 21, 2025
Kaieteur Sports– In a proactive move to foster a safer and more responsible sporting environment, the National Sports Commission (NSC), in collaboration with the Office of the Director of...Kaieteur News- The notion that “One Guyana” is a partisan slogan is pure poppycock. It is a desperate fiction... more
Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS, Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- In the latest... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]