Cracks in the coalition, then and now

Nov 26, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

The coalition government is facing its greatest test. Both the Alliance For Change (AFC) and the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) are concerned with being sidelined by their more powerful counterpart, the People’s National Congress Reform. But not many of them are taking the approach of the former head of the United Force, Peter D’Aguiar, who had threatened to resign as Minister of Finance during the 1964-1968 term of the PNC-UF coalition government.
D’Aguiar had reached the point of no return because of the PNC’s financial skullduggery. It took the direct intervention of the United States Embassy in Guyana to prevent the resignation of the leader of the United Force from the government, something that would have caused the coalition to disintegrate and Burnham to lose power.
D’Aguiar would have spared Guyana a lot of agony had he gone ahead with his resignation. Because no sooner was he back in government, Burnham began to lay plans to dump the United Force. He made no secret about it, even going as far as revealing his plans to the local United States Embassy.
As the 1968 election drew near, Burnham made his move. He made it clear to his party that he would never again lead his party into a coalition government. He opted for electoral fraud instead. He rigged the 1968 elections so flagrantly that D’Aguiar himself had to state, “To call it an election is to give it a name it does not deserve; it was a seizure of power by fraud, not election”.
It did not end that simple though. Burnham was determined that he had to rout the supporters of the United Force so that they would not stand a chance of opposing him. And so within years of his 1968 election, he began to hurt the powerful business class which at the time was dominated by the Portuguese, by requiring licences for the importation of a number of goods. The result of that and other pressures was that most of them packed up and left, taking with them their enormous wealth. The exodus was joined by others who saw the writing on the wall.
Coalitions have never sat well with the People’s National Congress. Coalitions have always been seen as a means to power. The PNCR has had little experience in coalition politics, even though it often likes to refer to its experience in running a coalition government between 1964 and 1968. The truth is that divorce was always on the cards from the first day of that marriage.
The post-Rodney WPA was always convinced after 1992 that Guyana’s political problems could only be solved by political power-sharing between the PPP and the PNC. It even convinced Desmond Hoyte, who was originally a skeptic of shared governance that the time had come for shared governance.
The next leader of the PNCR, Robert Corbin, began creating a broader coalition of parties to try to unseat the PPP/C. Ironically; it was the AFC which was the ‘spoiler’ of Corbin’s plans for a ‘big tent’ coalition. But eventually in 2011, after it was clear that the demographics of the country had changed appreciably enough to allow for the PPPC to be defeated, the two exchanged matrimonial vows on Valentine Day 2015. It is Robert Corbin who deserves the credit for making a coalition government possible. He was the original architect.
The APNU+AFC marriage has not worked, but both sides have pretended that things are fine. However, the supporters of the AFC, particularly its overseas-based backers, have not been comfortable with the AFC’s sycophancy to APNU. And they have spoken out about what is happening, so much so that a major schism has developed within the AFC.
The AFC’s leadership is not as concerned about how it is being treated. Political power can have that numbing effect on you. However, in the face of rising tide of criticism about how it is being treated, we have heard the first whining from the AFC about it being sidelined in relation to the appointment of a commissioner of the Guyana Elections Commission.
The AFC’s nominee for the position was bypassed in favour of a nominee from the Working People’s Alliance. It was not unexpected. The President did what he had to do. He had no other choice than to appoint the WPA candidate. It makes sense, given the open criticism of the government by the WPA.
The AFC is not going to leave the coalition, and Granger knows this better than the AFC leadership. The AFC is “dead meat” if they stay or if they leave. The PNCR has no need to placate them. They are finished. They have allowed themselves to be used and have lost credibility. The sidelining of the AFC’s candidate was just a reminder to them as to where they stand in the coalition. They are just there to keep the PPPC out.
The AFC had no choice but to complain this time, rather than excusing the actions of the President, as is its habit. The AFC is facing a whirlwind of criticism over how they are being treated. The other alternative to speaking out was to threaten to leave the coalition. The PNCR knows that the AFC will never do that, not after tasting the nectar of power.
Burnham saw the cracks in his 1964 coalition and opted for divorce. The AFC knows that its marriage with APNU is on the rocks, but it has opted to stay in an abusive relationship. The AFC will pay a huge political price for doing so.

 

---

---