POLITICS IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS SOME MAKE IT OUT TO BE

Sep 16, 2013 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

Politics, more so Guyana’s politics, is not as simple as some would have us believe.  The local political machinations are often a complex process involving a convergence of factors and processes which can at times be highly complicated.
Take for example, the issue of the tripartite process. An argument has been made that the process lost credibility because of government’s failure to have serious consultations over the 2012 Budget, leaving the AFC out of discussions relating to Linden and recalcitrance on other matters.
These reasons did contribute to a loss of credibility but the collapse of the tripartite process was also as a result of a far more complicated process in which the very mechanism that was established after the elections of 2011 was undermined by actions of the opposition parties.
Having initiated a process in which there was a commitment to regularly meeting and having discussions with the opposition parties, the ruling PPPC was greeted with a campaign to marginalize them from the National Assembly and to break with established convention when it came to the elections of a returning Speaker.
The opposition parties were not interested in any discussions with the government when it came to the composition of parliamentary committees. They wanted to take control and marginalize the government in these committees and most of all they wanted to assume the Speakership, refusing to allow the former Speaker who was available for re-election and who by convention should have been reelected, to once again return as Speaker.
There were bilateral discussions between APNU and the AFC on the issue of who should be the Speaker. The tripartite mechanism was totally ignored by the opposition when it came to this issue. The actions of the combined opposition thus from the inception undermined the tripartite process.
The government does, of course, share some blame for its intransigence over consultations on the 2012 Budget but the failure of this process must be viewed in the context of the hostilities generated by the opposition’s actions in parliament which destroyed whatever foundations may have been laid for the building of trust and confidence.
There were also advanced discussions between APNU and the government on the 2012 Budget. In fact, both sides were close to agreement on a series of measures when the AFC became the spoil sport and its actions in Linden forced APNU to change course. This ultimately led to a breakdown of the talks and subsequently to the tragedy in Linden.
After the tragedy in Linden, there were discussions between the three parties on the issue and this subsequently culminated in various agreements including a Commission of Inquiry. However, at the most unholy hour, the AFC again raised an objection into the COI inquiring into the groups that were involved on orchestrating the protests.
It is easy and perhaps convenient to cast blame on one side for the failures of the tripartite process or to emphasize only what one side ought to have been doing to make the process work better. However political developments are often much more complicated.
The tripartite process was not a total failure. If there is any example of where the tripartite process worked and worked well it was in relation to the Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project. Not only did the government demonstrate a welcome commitment to greater transparency on this project but they did so by engaging the opposition in a more than meaningful manner on this and other projects.
All of the major agreements that were signed by the government were made public and also released to the media. It is precisely because there was this level of transparency by the Donald Ramotar administration that some of the present criticisms are now possible. They are now possible because the agreements are now public record compliments of the government.
But the Ramotar administration went further and held confidential briefings where the developer was able to explain details and the opposition could ventilate their concerns. It was after one such briefing that AFC dropped their objections to the project. APNU therefore cannot complain that it did not have the opportunity to clarify its doubts and express its concerns. There was more than sufficient time and opportunity.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that APNU’s failure to support two major Bills was as a result of extraneous considerations and part of a more complex web of political considerations, including its own internal dynamics. There is for example within APNU factions that would love to see a policy of non- cooperation with the government.
There are equally more reasonable voices that would love to see a new governance mechanism emerge, one that is far more inclusive than what presently exists.
It is the convergence of many factors that ultimately led to the no- vote by APNU on the two Bills before the National Assembly, a no- vote that increased the political risk of the project and caused the developer to withdraw. To simply say that the government failed to answer critical questions is as simplistic as it is off- mark.

---

---