New Politics or the “same ole, same ole”?

Dec 05, 2010 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

After considering the inappropriateness of some of the political institutions bequeathed/imposed by the colonial power and the just as inappropriate innovations introduced after independence (“Constitutional Contradictions”), we had noted the “joint” opposition’s proposal of some putatively “root and branch” innovations in this area if they were to be elected.
We promised to continue the discussion, but the unfortunate death of Mr Winston Murray demanded a diversion last week. Not a trivial diversion, mind you, because I do believe that Mr Murray had offered the joint opposition the best candidate to challenge the PPP’s lock on the government.
One can have great ideas and plans for addressing the manifest and felt problems of voters but the credibility and personality – indeed the person – of the candidate at the top of the slates will be a crucial factor in the upcoming elections.
Guyanese have understandably become rather cynical about political promises and manifestos after the less than sterling performance of the two major parties in the last fifty years. The resolute and upright character of candidates lends credibility to declarations that lapses in performances might be due more to contingencies than to complicities in corruption.
Almost a decade and a half after the passing of Dr Jagan, the political capital of his character, which grounded much of the PPP’s hardcore support, has almost been exhausted. Mr. Winston Murray had presented the opposition – both in his willingness to subsume the PNC within a broader alliance and in his impeccable character – with pregnant possibilities. His passing poses a severe challenge for an effective, and ultimately successful, joint opposition – especially with the AFC choosing to go it alone on the hustings.
The AFC’s decision to abjure a joint opposition slate is based on its reading of the electorate’s pulse – especially from the Indian segment – that supposedly signals any linkage with the PNC as a kiss of death. Maybe. But a kiss of death for whom or what?
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.
Indians will not “split” their vote in significant numbers if the platform they are asked to move onto is not perceived as capable of winning. This was the conundrum they faced with ROAR in 2001 and being very pragmatic decided to stick with the known or (in 2006) chose not to vote. Additionally, the AFC has developed its own credibility problems centred on the character of their leadership, ironically in reference to the self identical quality they had purportedly addressed with their “rotation of leadership” contrivance.
Within a united opposition, while the leaders may be smaller fishes within a bigger pond, the AFC will have the opportunity to alter the trajectory of (objected to) PNC’s politics and (very crucial for the future) its image.
I remember in 2004 when the PNC was pushing for the Joint Parliamentary Opposition Parties (JPOP) to support its calls for an inquiry into the alleged linkages between then Minister of Home Affairs Mr Ronald Gajraj and certain Death Squads. It supported the extension of the proposed terms of reference to include the violence on the East Coast emanating from its epicentre of Buxton, in rather explicit terms. For the historical record, I must point out that while this had been ROAR’s publicly declared position, at the JPOP meeting in question, it was Dr Clive Thomas, representing the WPA that immediately mooted the extension, which was accepted by Mr Corbin and his team without any demurral.
My surmise is that in the intervening six years, the PNC has moved further down the road of accepting the need for coalition politics and the commensurate need for compromises. 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, the presence of the AFC within JPOP will reduce the inevitable temptations of the disequilibrium of size the PNC presently enjoys.
Functional Guyanese democratic politics, meaning one where there is neither tyranny of the majority or the minority, can only be assured by the politics of “in and out”. Such a politics is not possible when a party representing either of the two major voting blocks is ostracised ad infinitum as beyond the pale. It also most dangerously raises accusations of racism and rectificatory violence.
There must be rational stated reasons – apart from possibly replacing the PNC as the “major” opposition party – for rejecting a coalition that includes the PNC – which is the perquisite for any hope of opposition success at the polls in 2011. Not also, the historical, reflexive knee-jerk reactions that must be transcended – by concrete demands on the PNC if necessary.
While we may rhapsodise about creating new institutions – we must acknowledge that the latter are never perfect and are ineluctably permanent works in progress. Lasting change is always incremental. We cannot wish for a Utopia but must choose among proximate alternatives that are available in the here and now – especially when they hold out possibilities of positive change.

---

---