From 93 to zero; 57 to 8; 6 to 1

May 12, 2016 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

There is a famous saying about coalition politics and it comes from one of the 20th Century’s most successful woman leaders. Not Indira Gandhi from India; not Golda Meir from Israel; not German Chancellor Angela Merkel, once said that in an election after a coalition government, it is the small party that always gets smashed.
Merkel’s coalition partner, the Free Democrats lost all of its 93 seats in the 2013 federal election. Over in the UK, the Liberal-Democrats (the equivalent to the Free Democrats) got a taste of power they didn’t have since 1945. In the 2010 election, they teamed up with the Conservative Party in a joint government.
In 2015, the Lib-Dems went from 57 seats to a mere eight. In Trinidad, Congress of the People (COP) joined up with one of the two big giants, United Nation Congress (UNC) in government in 2010. In 2015, it went from six seats to one. Why do the smaller parties get “smashed,” (Merkel’s word)? There are basically two explanations.
First, if the smaller party is of the same ideological orientation, then voters see it as an appendage. Voters figure it is best to do away with it and give the larger partner a handsome mandate. That is quite logical. Why would citizens want to give the junior guy a free ride when he/she is a replica of the bigger brother? The second explanation has absolutely nothing in common with the first factor.
When a coalition in government takes place between two parties that have different ideological complexions and philosophical orientations then the partnership is not going to a blissful wedding. It cannot be – core values are at the heart of an organization. Core values are its raison d’etre. The PNC-UF Coalition in 1964 could not have been serene and happy-going. The UF was a dogmatic, doctrinaire right-wing party that catered for bourgeois European and Portuguese interests.
The PNC on the other hand was essentially a people’s party with extensive interests in working class economics. Uneasiness had to characterize such a covenant.
From 1968 the PNC ruled Guyana until 1992. From that year up to May 2015, the PPP ruled despite masquerading as a unity regime with an invisible organism named “The Civics.” Not since 1964 have we had a coalition administration. The situation since 2015 is a sensitive one particularly with the WPA having Cabinet inclusion.
Although the WPA has one Minister (Rupert Roopnaraine), many of its leaders hold important state positions – Clive Thomas is in charge of the assets recovery programme; Maurice Odle is the chairman of NICIL.
The WPA has never exercised state power since its formation in 1979 as a political party. Based on an ideology called Rodneyism taken from the soulful politics of Walter Rodney, the WPA is living in uncertain times. It can hardy be said that it replicates the ideology and philosophy of its huge partner, the PNC. The praxis of the WPA differs significantly from the PNC. One does not have to read the mountains of adumbrations of Walter Rodney to know that the WPA would change the marijuana laws tomorrow if it was the largest decimal in the coalition.
It would certainly not approach the Stabroek Market vendors the way the APNU-AFC regime did. It would not have tolerated the Rusal trade union horror show if it was the major partner in government.
Sadly, we are witnessing the demise of the WPA. As Merkel said, the small party gets smashed. If the WPA continues to obfuscate its core values as the Coalition continues in office, by 2020, no one will want to hear from it. It will be so invisible and moribund that it will not bring anything to the 2020 election table. The WPA prides itself on its historical symbolism.
But the longer it stays in government and is overshadowed the way the Lib-Dems, Free Democrats and COP have been, then death awaits it. I think this country is seeing the final moments of the WPA despite the gargantuan bravery of its iconic leader, Dr. David Hinds. This is one David that will get a bad beating from Goliath.
I am not too sure the AFC will be strong enough in 2020 to recapture its performance in the 2006 and 2011 general elections. But unlike the WPA, the AFC is not philosophically different from the PNC. Both have middle class leadership that embraces neo-liberal economics. But not surprisingly, the PNC is more rooted in working class politics.
The longer the AFC stays in government and appears to be dominated by its larger partner, the quicker it will lose its symbolism as the democratic third way.

Latest News

From 93 to zero; 57 to 8; 6 to 1

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 7th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Imlach masterclass 126, Alimohamed 66-ball 77, give Harpy Eagles life...

Fraser rebounds well, as Arjoon keeps perfect...

Guyana to host historic 3×3 Quest Tournament

Quarter-Finals in Mashramani Street Football...

Vurlon Mills Football Academy launches KFC...

DEMLIFE Golf Tournament tees off today at LGC

Features/Columnists

Due diligence on investments must become a priority

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Awestruck and starstruck with a twist

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

From 93 to zero; 57 to 8; 6 to 1

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 7th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]