By being weak, the opposition finds itself now contemplating a high risk gamble

Sep 28, 2014 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Mr. Nigel Hughes’ letter published in Kaieteur News on September 16.2014 captioned, “It is difficult in this environment to push for a serious discussion on an interim govt. of national unity” caught my attention. I read it with keen interest. In his letter Mr. Hughes was responding to one authored by Dr David Hinds in which Hinds expressed the view that the no confidence motion should have been tied to a proposal for an interim government in Guyana.
It is not my intention here to defend either of the two advocated positions. That is not necessary, since in my estimation, the two writers are capable of defending themselves and don’t need my help. However, as Mr. Hughes’ letter restated the AFC’s position for the no confidence motion, i.e. the need to have new elections, I wish to take this opportunity to explore the political thinking of the AFC leadership on this political strategy, because they are advocating this course of action as the one best way to deal with the PPPC and the government.
In his letter, Hughes reiterated very strongly one of the main reasons for the AFC pressing ahead with its no confidence motion. He said, “There comes a time in the life of the Republic where the plunder of state’s assets and resources by those in whose care they have been entrusted has reached such astronomical levels that to permit it to continue without the registration of the strongest possible constitutional protest, is a neglect of one’s responsibility to the electorate.”
I am not sure what Mr. Hughes meant here by “the strongest possible constitutional protest”. Is he referring to the act of tabling the motion of no confidence in the government in the national assembly, or is it about the consequence of the motion which ushers in General and Regional Elections when it is passed. Because of what I perceive as the absence of clarity by Mr. Hughes on this important question, I am forced, for the purpose of this letter, to conclude that Mr. Hughes and the AFC have in mind both the tabling and consequence of the motion.
There is no need for me to waste time on whether the government’s arrogance and disrespect for the majority in the parliament and the nation require an appropriate political response from the opposition. It does. Only the politically naive will think otherwise. The AFC has taken the position that going back to the electorate is the best action for the opposition to take. The question I wish to pose is this – is this really so? Is the opposition satisfied that it has exhausted all of the political options inside and outside the parliament to justify the “high risk” political gamble of going back to elections at this point? In 2011, the people gave the “opposition” a powerful mandate, which they have not fully utilised. By restricting their struggle to the parliament and failing to make any serious attempt to mobilise the people to put political pressure on the rulers, the opposition political parties demonstrated that they are weak and ineffective and not quite ready for hard-balled politics. The political situation today would have being very different if the APNU and AFC, jointly or separately had held rallies and marches with the stated goal of making the regime respect the majority in the parliament. A practical demonstration of “people’s power” in the streets would have brought the rulers to their senses a long time ago. This failure of the opposition to take to the streets and use the most potent political tool at its disposal to manners the PPPC party and government make the case for elections, premature.
The APNU and the AFC must come round to the realisation that their combined failure to mobilise the energies of the people has let the rulers off the hook and put enormous pressure on themselves to find a political solution to the crisis the country is faced with. By demonstrating that they have been weak and indecisive over the last three years they now find themselves contemplating a high risk political gamble to go back to general and regional elections.
What are the AFC’s expectations? Do they really believe that a three party fight will lead to the PPPC losing the plurality? Can the AFC guarantee the nation and its supporters that a three way contest will not lead to the PPPC regaining the majority that they lost in the 2011 general and regional elections? And if this eventuates would the AFC leadership accept responsibility for the consequences of its political miscalculation or would they turn around and blame the people for the political outcome?  These are important issues which the AFC must address publicly to demonstrate that its judgement on the present political situation and its call for general elections are the correct responses at this time.
The AFC’s no confidence strategy has to be tested against what I believe are very pertinent questions which I have sought to draw to that party’s attention. As a serious party it owes the nation a considered response to them. I also hold the view that if it fails to address them publicly it runs the risk of being seen as concerned only with its narrow partisan interest i.e. simply wanting to increase its numbers in parliament at the expense of the APNU and the nation and in the process, give the PPPC the majority.
Tacuma Oyunseye

---

---