WPA introduces realism into coalition government in Guyana

Jul 29, 2017 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

At its press conference this week, the WPA made a most absorbing declaration. It said that it wants the Coalition administration to succeed, accepts it is part of such reality, and will work to hold the coalition together.
However, it will introduce into the government, the WPA’s original culture of speaking up if it thinks that there are policies that it does not agree with. It specifically mentioned youths and the welfare of the working people.
This position of the WPA of its role in government conflicts in essence with the AFC’s perspective on coalition configurations in the exercise of power. It is either the AFC is dishonest, power drunk as Dr. David Hinds accused it of, or is simply ignorant of what the concept of coalition government is and how such a multi-dimensional formation functions. From my June 21, 2016 column, I wrote, “Coalition government is seldom solid. What makes coalition rule unsteady is the very nature of it – it is a coalition. Any dictionary will inform you that a coalition regime is a number of different organizations that came together with each wanting to use the State, if it wins elections, to implement its ideas and programmes.
“The most common example of instabilities that characterize coalition governments is Israel. “Each party has its own agenda, and to form a government, the larger parties have to make concessions. Some of these parties are theocratic, some strongly anti-Palestinian, some pro-compromise.
“Italy once had several governments within each year because the coalition entities could never agree thus they would pull out of the formation and new elections would have to be held. Italy became a joke around the world for the number of governments it would have in each year. One thing is common in coalition administrations – each party must have some of its cores values transmitted into policy.
“There is no way a coalition would last if one of its units is an environment party and the government refuses to commit itself to climate change. What brings trouble in multi-party regimes is that each of the units fights in government to keep its raison d’etre.
“The opposite of coalition rule is single party or majority party government. The ruling party in those countries does not have to make concessions to other political parties because those parties are not sharing power with them.”
I wrote that column because the AFC went all over the place telling the nation that it has to show Cabinet solidarity. Let’s quote the AFC’s executive, Business Minister, Dominic Gaskin. This is taken from my July 19, 2016 column. “Certainly at the Cabinet level there is an obligation, there is a collective responsibility for decision-making at that level and therefore …there can be no, I guess, division on that level and that is just the reality of a Cabinet.”
In response to the minister I penned the following line in that very column; “I’m afraid this is not what Coalition Government is made of.”
Here now is another extract. This time from my column of August 30, 2016 on the nature of coalition administration with the caption; “Cabinet solidarity in coalition regimes is pathetic nonsense.” This is what I wrote back then.
“Cabinet solidarity only thrives in a unitary government which came about as a result of proportional representation. Here the leader of the party is pragmatically the maximum leader. In a government that came about through first-past-the post voting, Cabinet solidarity is never assured because Ministers are always under the microscopic lenses of their constituencies. What happens, then, is that Ministers are forced to go public with the way they voted in cabinet because if cabinet voted for fracking in his/her district and his constituency is dead set against fracking then he/she has to go to the constituency and tell them how the vote went.
There is no such thing as cabinet solidarity in coalition regimes because it is a contradiction in terms. How can you say the mango is sweet bad but very bitter? The two cannot be reconciled. Bitter/sweet taste is not a scientific term but a romantic phrase and is popular in literature but has no place in science.
Either the milk is good or it has turned. You cannot have turned milk that is good to drink. You cannot have a unitary cabinet if there are several parties that make up the government. The loyalty of each party is to country, party and supporters.”
This is essentially what the WPA has said to the APNU this week and openly stated this is how it will operate.

Latest News

WPA introduces realism into coalition government in Guyana

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Wharton’s brilliance propels Chase’s Academic to another Republic...

Seales’ 4 for 5 gives West Indies control...

WARRIORS BOUNCE BACK AGAINST HAMPSHIRE

Victoria go top with second win

GFF and Namilco officially launch Maid Marian...

GFF celebrates the successful completion of...

Features/Columnists

The PPPC does not practice political inclusion

Haiti: Tragically Descending into Deeper Crisis

What’s going on with this $100,000 cash grant?

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

WPA introduces realism into coalition government in Guyana

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

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 […]