The challenge now facing the Guyanese people is how to bring the ship back on course

Aug 15, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

As the consequential episodes continue to unfold following passage of the No Confidence Motion (NCM) beginning from December 21, 2018 to present, there is a fundamental question that appears to have slipped under the radar.
It is to be recalled that following passage of the NCM and the end of the 11th sitting of the National Assembly at approximately 9:26 pm, APNU+AFC MPs, led by Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo et al, held a hurriedly called press conference in the Parliament Buildings at about 10pm that same night.
At the late night event, Mr. Nagamootoo admitted;
“We have suffered a setback. This is not an ordinary setback. This is a serious political setback.”
Capturing the utterings of the Prime Minister at the press conference, Stabroek News of 21/12/18 reported as follows;
‘PM Nagamootoo has accepted that it lost the No Confidence Motion brought against it by the PPP/C and the relevant constitutional provisions will kick in.’
In S/N of the same date, the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) chimed in stating:
‘Our democracy is at work… the decision is lawful and binding.’
For his part, President Granger kept his powder dry for just about 24 hours after the passage of the motion. It was not until Saturday, December 22, 2018 when the President declared;
“Government will abide by the stipulations which have been imposed upon it following passage of the No Confidence Motion.”
But a major concern that has not been interrogated fully is; what was it that made the APNU+AFC change its position within just thirteen days (13) after admitting that; it lost the motion, that the motion was validly passed, that they had suffered a serious political setback and finally, that government will abide by the (Constitutional) stipulations imposed on it?
Could it be that the APNU+AFC parliamentary group did not consult with other key coalition and other non-parliamentary stakeholders before admitting defeat at the hands of the opposition? Were there any confessions and criticisms within the coalition that the parliamentary group had acted prematurely? Were there any accusations of betrayal by one partner to another?
Admittedly, while these are all speculative questions suggesting speculative answers, be that as it may, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the NCM must have had a tsunami-type impact on the coalition, triggering internal squabbling over an unauthorized deviation from the cultivated image of the coalition.
At the risk of deeming the issue ‘water under the bridge’ and as engaging in an excursion into the realm of speculation, it is nevertheless important that we reflect on the APNU+AFC’s change of mind in order to understand why we are where are today on the cusp of a constitutional and political crisis.
The situation at the time of the passage of the NCM, could be characterized as one where in the twinkling of an eye, an overconfident and exuberant Government was tamed by the fickle ways of politics.
In retrospect, though all the right things were said by government spokesmen at the press conference and later, by the President himself, what followed immediately after was tantamount to a frenetic scramble to claw back out of a political quagmire onto safer ground.
Reality, it appeared, had dawned upon members of the coalition that political power had slipped from their hands. Thus, it became urgent for the coalition to demonstrate to the nation that they were still in charge.
Caught in a tailspin with the passage of the NCM, the coalition government’s fragility became so corrosive that it rapidly degenerated into a default mindset.
The NCM had obviously upset the APNU+ AFC’s elections timetable and by extension, the shelf-life of the administration, whose foundation was battered beyond repair by the NCM. And as if gasping for political oxygen, the need for time and space became a matter of political survival for the coalition administration.
But the fundamental challenge for the coalition was, in what way and by what means could the coalition continue to govern legitimately having lost its credibility as a result of the Constitutional provisions imposed upon it, and to which it was legally bound.
Whatever the coalition’s mindset was at the time of the passage of the NCM, subsequent events proved that the mindset changed dramatically to a more hardline, inflexible approach anchored in the thinking that; ‘We can’t give up just like that.’
In the circumstances, it was a clear case where the President had no interest whatsoever in being a prisoner of the constitution, nor to be humiliated by the political opposition
It was this cynical narrative that guided subsequent steps of the administration’s forays into the realm of the judiciary with the hope of buying time and space with a view to undoing what the constitution, in letter and spirit, had called upon the coalition to do.
Taking advantage of the separation of powers, the ruling coalition then sought to utilize the machinery of the executive branch to obfuscate and frustrate every order of the Judiciary, be they from a lower or higher court.
The strategic objective being: to live through its full five-year term in office.
Having found itself between a rock and a hard place, the caretaker government embarked on a journey aimed at deceiving the populace into believing that it would honour its Constitutional obligations, but would do so by way of a self-fulfilling prophecy of its own making.
What followed were manifestations of the depth to which the country’s ethical tone can fall as witnessed for example, in the infamous miscalculation of what constitutes half of sixty-five.
Little did the caretaker government realize that to change MV Guyana’s course by one degree, would cause the ship to sail through entirely different, if not uncharted waters as is evident in Guyana today.
The challenge now facing the Guyanese people is how to bring the ship back on course and to effect a change of crew who will bring the ship safely to a port where there will be no storm, and where the people will study war of any kind no more.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee

---

---