Is there a deal between the AFC and the APNU?

Sep 28, 2018 Peeping Tom

As expected, the Alliance for Change has gone on the counteroffensive against the PPP which had accused it of fraud in the submitting its lists for the local government elections. A number of persons have come forward and indicated that either they did not sign documents supporting the AFC lists in certain areas, or that they were deceived into signing those lists.
Some of these persons demanded that their names be withdrawn. The PPP has made allegations so far only against the AFC. It has not accused the APNU of any similar malpractice.
The AFC has come out swinging. It now accuses the PPP of intimidating persons to withdraw their names from the list. This was an expected reaction from the AFC. You could have bet your life that this would have been the excuse made.
It is possible, of course, that there are persons who were intimidated or asked by the PPP to claim that they were duped into signing the AFC’s list.
But how does one explain the allegations that someone who is dead appeared as supporting the AFC list? How does one explain that of the persons who appended his signature in support of an AFC list is a man, a man whose identification card has a thumb print and whose relatives claims that he cannot read or write?
How does one explain the fact that the signatures of an entire family in one area are almost totally similar? Surely, there must be some explanation for these anomalies other than the fact that the PPP may be coercing persons to withdraw their names from the lists.
It is normal requirement that individuals and parties wishing to contest elections must garner support (nominations) from a certain number of citizens. In the case of municipalities, the list of any political party must be supported by at least 100 persons for the proportional representation component and at least 50 for the constituency component.
In the case of neighbourhood democratic councils, the numbers are 20 in each category.
The reason for these is to prevent parties and individuals with marginal or support from contesting. If everyone had the right to contest an election without any demonstrated support, the ballot paper would be as long as from now to never.
This is the reason why before presenting their candidacies, political parties and individuals must demonstrate that they gave support. It weeds out those with little or no support.
The AFC obviously, given its electoral support in the 2011 elections – the last one it contested individually – would have found it difficult in some areas to find enough persons to support its list. Therefore, it is for the AFC to demonstrate that it did not pad the names presented as having supported its various lists.
The AFC credibility is at stake. This is the party that people expected to act as counterfoil against any attempt by the PNCR to revert to its old electoral tricks. It would be an unfortunate development if the AFC is found to have committed electoral fraud.
It is understandable that there will be persons who will be forced to withdraw their support but as mentioned, there are anomalies where no such explanation is justified.
The AFC is contesting its first ever local government elections without a partnership with the APNU. The two parties, it is claimed, failed to reach an agreement to contest the elections jointly.
But there are suspicions that given the PPP’s domination of the last local government elections and the alleged attempts by the government to gerrymander boundaries, that there may be backdoor deals between the APNU and the AFC to split the PPP votes in marginal constituencies, thereby allowing APNU to improve on its 2016 showing.
Why would the APNU have refused a joint slate with the AFC when there is no major division with the government and when there are a number of other parties within the APNU which have far less support than the APNU and which has not asked those parties to enter into any pre-election agreement?
Could it be that the APNU believes that the only way to beat the PPP this time around is to split the PPP votes and gerrymander boundaries? The AFC has a lot of explaining to do.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News