Third Parties Could Impact Election Outcome

Oct 17, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

Desmond Alli is right that with “free and fair elections”, small parties (could) change the political landscape (KN Oct 15). However, some commented (in KN and other media) that in light of the behaviour of the AFC), the future of third parties (like ANUG, LJP, URP, etc.) is bleak. The argument is made that voters will not trust third parties again because the AFC failed to carry out its mission to hold the major party (PNC) accountable. In several parts of the Caribbean, third (minor) parties have impacted on politics; Trinidad is instructive of this argument. Even in Guyana, third parties helped to determine the outcome of elections in 1964, 1992, 2011, and 2015. The situation can be repeated in 2020.
Voters are indeed disappointed with the AFC, which should have learned from the experience of the COP in Trinidad in the (UNC-COP) coalition government under Prime Minister Kamla (2010-15). COP was “bought out” with perks and positions for its leadership and office holders opting to remain silent as some in the UNC ran amok in running the government. COP defended its silence as a necessary compulsion of a coalition government. COP is virtually dead but could prevent the UNC from defeating PNM if it runs independently pulling a few hundred votes in marginal seats. Like COP, AFC has value. Many AFC supporters have nowhere to go lacking a political home. Some of the party support gravitates towards the PPP and minor parties. But AFC still commands some critical support that will shape the outcome of an election. If AFC were to apologise (and explain how it was hamstrung or handicapped in government) and contest on its own, it could recover some support winning seats. But this is not likely to happen. The AFC will remain with the coalition.
The behaviour of the AFC should not be used as the yardstick to draw conclusions of the value and support of other minor parties. The minor parties command some critical support needed for winning seats and government formation. They should not be written off, and they could very well help to shape the outcome of the March 2 election. The Trinidad experience of 2001, 2002, 2007, and 2010 elections is instructive. Prime Minister Basdeo Panday won elections in Trinidad with Ramesh Maharaj (Attorney General) as his de facto successor in 1995 and 2000. After Ramesh won the succession election as deputy leader (Panday advocated for the defeat of Ramesh) in 2001, Panday sacked Ramesh for demanding a probe into corruption. Panday dissolved parliament, calling elections in December 2001 confident that he would bury Ramesh from the political scene. Ramesh formed a party (Team Unity) that did not win any seat but pulled enough votes from Panday’s UNC causing it lose a critical seat and the government in December. Patrick Manning became PM and called elections in October 2002. With opinion polls showing a Panday-Ramesh coalition winning, Panday reconciled with Ramesh but within days broke off the arrangement when his financiers (Clico among others) told him he would win without Ramesh. The financiers convinced Panday to team up with Central Banker Winston Dookeran who was promised leadership of the party.
Polls conducted by me showed Panday-Dookeran alliance losing to Manning’s PNM but Panday-Ramesh combination winning. Panday gambled tying up with Dookeran and lost. There was a fallout between Panday and Dookeran who had become leader of the UNC but Panday refused to give up the Opposition Leader position. Failing to unseat Panday as Opposition Leader, Dookeran left and formed the COP. A Cadres poll (Peter Wickham) in 2007 showed COP winning the 2007 election. A poll conducted by this writer showed a Panday-Ramesh combination trouncing COP but losing to Manning’s PNM. Panday appealed to Ramesh to return on the latter’s terms. The two re-embraced and teamed up with Jack Warner. A poll I conducted showed UNC-COP combination winning the elections. Dookeran refused to form a coalition for the elections with the Cadres poll showed it winning the elections. The October 2007 elections saw COP winning 20% of the votes but no seat. The numbers suggested a combined UNC-COP alliance would have won. In 2010, a poll I conducted showed a UNC-COP alliance winning the elections. Dookeran agreed to form an alliance with Kamla who had defeated Panday for leadership of the UNC. A Kamla-Dookeran alliance won a landslide victory in the May 2010 elections. In the September 2015 elections, the UNC-COP alliance was undermined (collapsed) over seat distribution; UNC candidates replaced COP in several seats and lost.
In Guyana, AFC did well in 2006, 2011, and 2015. With it forming an alliance with APNU, the latter would not have unseated PPP from office. Coalition works.
The Trinidad and Guyana examples showed how third parties could determine the outcome of elections. Alliances worked for UNC in Trinidad to capture government but it lost power when it broke off the alliance. Data shows an opposition alliance winning in Trinidad in 2020. Similarly, in Guyana, polling data shows an opposition alliance winning. ANUG and LJP are attracting voters disgruntled with both major parties and are winning seats. Other minor parties are also attracting votes though not seats. No party enjoys majority support. As in Trinidad, the minor parties could indeed hold the balance of power in Guyana as Alli argues.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram (PhD)

---

---