The President is saying indefensible things

Jun 26, 2017 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

I can cite about four emanations within the past week where the President has made some definitive statements that are simply curious, intriguing and not easily defendable. I hope to pen a column on each of these pronouncements. I start with the observation by Mr. Granger that he doesn’t think the business of the coalition should be transacted in the media. He said he doesn’t do business like that and he doesn’t attack his coalition partners.
These remarks formed his response to questions from the media following the WPA June 19 press conference in which two crucial criticisms were made in relation to the transfer of Minister Roopnaraine – (a) the WPA was not consulted when Roopnaraine was appointed and when he was transferred, (b) the Government has sidelined the WPA the past two years.
Let us look at the media comment first. It is obvious that the President didn’t take too lightly to these feelings by the WPA expressed to the media. The President is not on sound ground. First, in March 2016, AFC leaders grumbled that in the local government elections for Georgetown, only three seats were assigned to the AFC.
As a reaction to that, the AFC leader made the following public statement; “I have had complaints from my members and I intend to talk to Amna Ally about it. That’s a genuine concern that I have and I will want to address it, but the coalition will have to address that.”
Second, the very next month, the Alliance For Change met in retreat session at the Convention Centre after which it issued a press statement which included the following assertion; “The Alliance For Change is of the opinion that the current difficulties which the government has encountered in the continuing revelations arising out of the appointment of the Advisor on Business Development and the issues surrounding this, have their roots in the concentration of the powers of the office of the Cabinet Secretary, the Minister of State in the Ministry of the Presidency and the effective Head of Presidential Secretariat in a single person. The Alliance For Change has mandated its leadership in Cabinet to have these issues raised and addressed as a matter of national importance.”
Thirdly, Moses Nagamootoo gave the following statement to the Kaieteur News carried in the April 21, 2017 edition of the paper; “When it comes to politics, most things never remain the same. And since “circumstances” have changed from the time the coalition party assumed office, the Alliance For Change (AFC) is of the belief that the time has come for the Cummingsburg Accord to be renegotiated.”
A month later, the AFC issued a press release informing the nation that it has birthed a committee to renegotiate the Accord with the APNU.
All of these feelings of the AFC made public, constituted coalition business. One wonders why then would the president react to two of the WPA statements in the way he did. I would think that the public position of the AFC that Minister Harmon’s ministry has too much power is equivalent to the WPA saying that it has been sidelined for two years.
In fact, it was only when the co-leader of the WPA, Rupert Roopnaraine, was shifted to another ministry did the WPA go public. But since March last year the AFC was going public.
We come now to the remark that he doesn’t criticize his partners in public. Do we have here conceptual confusion on the part of the president as to the nature of coalition politics and his understanding of what criticism is? Coalition politics is what it is – a marriage of convenience. The WPA made it pellucid in 2011 when APNU was born that it had joined up with the PNC in the interest of national unity. It said it felt that was what the Guyanese wanted.
The glowing fact remains that the WPA did not merge with the PNC. It entered coalition the arrangement with APNU. Surely, then, as a separate and distinct party it must speak to the nation on its role in government which is exactly what the AFC does and this is exactly what happens in coalition politics all over the world.
But aren’t we seeing an unusual approach to the politics of accountability, transparency and obligation if we accept the president’s perspective? It means coalition partners cannot go to the citizenry, which is the nation, where they have their support and tell them of the things they do not agree with in government because it doesn’t synchronize with their core values. Is such a position unwanted criticism of your partners?

Latest News

The President is saying indefensible things

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 27th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

KARCC hails 2025 Guyana-Suriname Group Ride a massive success

Cricket West Indies Launches Bold New Scouting...

Berbice Educational High CSEC Physical Education...

GSL 2025 to take place in July

Ken Harvey dominates GBA’s Pepsi/Michael...

Goal is Money survive scare on Opening Night of...

Features/Columnists

The burden of proof rests on the asserting party

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Straight talk

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

The President is saying indefensible things

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 27th, 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 […]