AFC must carve out its niche and not be absorbed by any existing process

Feb 06, 2011 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
Your newspaper’s reportage of remarks by Chairman of the Alliance For Change (AFC) party, Mr. Raphael Trotman, during his 2011 budget presentation, “Trotman calls for end to confrontational governance,” (KN, February 2), stands in stark contrast to what I read and reacted in shock and anger to on Demerarawaves.com, “AFC leader likely bowing out of parliamentary politics,” (January 31).
The one sentence in the Demerarawaves.com report that really set me off was this: “Trotman hinted that his return to the Chamber would depend on the replacement of the Westminster winner-take-all system with one of shared governance.”
Your news item, on the other hand, mentioned nothing about shared governance, only his call for genuine inclusive governance, which are two different concepts. I now wonder if the blog’s ‘shared governance’ reference was actually misinterpreted to mean the same as inclusive governance.
To me, inclusive governance requires the government to facilitate all parliamentary parties and concerned civic society groups in deliberations on hot button issues to help shape related decision-making processes.
The far more complex shared governance, on the other hand, is being offered as an antidote for Guyana’s dysfunctional politics created, in the first place, by the same parties that shared governance advocates now want to reward with a long-term shared governance arrangement.
Moreover, an AFC call for ‘shared governance’ would have to include the PPP and PNCR, both of which parties’ race-based politics were the primary reason why the AFC was launched in 2005, and since neither party has changed to-date, it is counterproductive for the AFC to make such a premature call.
On reading your news story, therefore, let me say I now have a different, perhaps better, appreciation of the AFC Chairman’s remarks and do echo his call for genuine inclusive governance, regardless which party wins the 2011 elections.
However, whether he will abandon politics if inclusive governance is not taken more seriously after the 2011 elections is a judgment call he must make.
But I have no doubt that the AFC Chairman wants to do what is right and, above all, what is right for the AFC Chairman who must be comfortable with himself whenever he makes personal political decisions.
On his call for genuine inclusive governance, this concept was always part of the political dialogue after the 1992 elections, with the late Dr. Cheddi Jagan assuring that it will be practiced on his watch.
Unfortunately, interpretation of the concept seemed to take on different meanings to different political players and, at one stage, the line separating inclusive governance from shared governance even became blurred, thus engendering hostility between the government and the political opposition.
Oddly, whereas the smaller parliamentary opposition (AFC) wants to see more inclusive governance, the larger parliamentary opposition (PNCR) wants to see shared governance, and since the AFC made it clear from inception that it would not form any alliance with the unreformed PPP and PNCR, it likely won’t get any support from the unreformed PPP or PNCR on inclusive governance.
In fact, since entering Parliament in 2006 with five seats, the AFC has been shunned by the Opposition Leader and the President, so that should tell us how genuine is the PNCR’s call for shared governance and how genuine is the government inclusive governance claim.
Generally, I don’t think the PPP or its government and PNCR look kindly on the AFC and would rather not include it in anything the PPP and PNCR are doing or discussing, so while I can understand the AFC Chairman’s frustration with a political system void of broad-based inclusive governance that has brought Guyana to the brink of failed nation status, the nature and magnitude of the problems require patience and perseverance to resolve, with the AFC playing its role as a rising third party.
Now, what would Mr. Trotman’s departure from the AFC and Guyana politics say of his capacity as a tenacious, visionary leader? He joined the PNCR, pushed for reforms and even drew praise for calling on the PNCR to apologise for its past behaviours in government. When things did not pan out to his expectations, he left and helped launch the AFC to help bring about the reforms he envisaged. Why quit now out of frustration? Did he really expect the PPP and PNCR to roll over with the advent of the AFC?
In certain dire situations, quitting is not an option, but if he does leave, then it is up to the other leaders and members of the AFC to carry on with the party’s mission based on its original vision. If the AFC is going to be a true third force, it has to carve out its own niche and not be absorbed by any existing process!
I’d rather see the AFC in Parliament as an opposition party fighting for people than a party subsumed by either the PPP or PNCR, because the PPP did attach a Civic arm and the PNCR did attach a Reform arm, and now both arms are pretty much paralyzed. Additionally, the PNCR coalesced with the UF in 1964 and then abandoned it in 1968. To those seeking alliances with the PNCR, history remains an informative teacher.
Mr. Editor, when the AFC started in 2005, I didn’t expect it would zoom to first place in 2006 – even though that would have been a welcomed miracle – but as with all forces of change, challenges will arise, and only the committed will conquer. If winners never quit and quitters never win, then what’s Mr. Trotman’s parting prize?
The moon landing didn’t happen on the first try. Mount Everest was not conquered on the first climb. And since the goal to end race-based politics is by far the most impressive outside good governance, then the road to that goal will require patience and perseverance.
The PPP and PNCR will not concede anything to the AFC until and unless the AFC gets into a position where it can leverage concessions, and if the AFC reads the tea leaves right, the wind of change is blowing at its back.
Between the PPP and PNCR, they have over 100 years, and though they have failed to deliver to the people, they have not given up fooling their constituents. So why should the AFC leaders give up in their bid to help wise-up Guyanese to their right to change the race-based political discourse and direction of Guyana?  Selah!
Emile Mervin

---

---