by Emile Mervin
I was more disappointed than surprised when I read a recent news article in which Alliance For Change leader, Mr. Raphael Trotman, opined that he is supportive of shared governance. This, after running his party in the 2006 election campaign as the most viable political alternative or the genuine ‘third force’ to the other two political forces – the PPP and PNC.
At what stage of his political career did Mr. Trotman become aware of the importance of the shared governance concept? If it was before or during the elections, then this is downright hypocritical. If it was an epiphany that dawned on him after he took up his seat in Parliament as a leader of the AFC, then there are serious questions he must be prepared to answer regarding the overall future of Guyana under a shared governance system.
In retrospect, I recall Messrs. Trotman and Khemraj Ramjattan splitting from their old parties, the PNC and PPP, respectively, because of those parties’ intransigence in the face of needed internal reforms. The two eventually paired up to promote the formation of a ‘third force’ party, even though the concept was already being bandied about the local political circuit.
Before they could have officially launched what is now known as the AFC, though, they were upstaged when the Guyana Third Force movement was launched. They went on to survive the confusion that evolved from this apparent conflict of there being two ‘third force’ entities, because the GTF morphed into a teetering facilitator. In the end, the AFC went on to snag five Parliamentary seats, with another one still under dispute.
But it was the AFCs staunch refusal to follow the GTF’s lead and consider an alliance of political parties, including and especially the PNC-One Guyana, in the run-up to the elections that distinguished it as a genuine alternative to the PPP and PNC. The general consensus back then was that a party could not be a ‘third force’ if allied itself with either the PPP or PNC.
Who knows, perhaps it was on this basis of presenting itself to voters, as well as the world, as the alternative to the PPP and PNC, that some voters hedged their bets in the hope that the rewards will outweigh the risks in an election race that traditionally favored ethnic support for the two major parties.
In the ensuing months since entering Parliament, observers and supporters of the AFC saw the party become engaged in an internal and external obstacle course race as it sought to break the PPP-PNC self-absorbing stranglehold on the nation’s body politic and establish itself as the ideal alternative that promoted ideas for development over ethnic pandering for partisan gains. As with most new organizations, teething pains are to be expected, so the AFC was cut some slack as it tried to distinguish itself as different from the status quo.
But then came this bombshell announcement that the party is amenable to the shared governance concept that was being mooted by the PNC before, during and even after the elections. This AFC shocker begs for an explanation as to what triggered this 180-degree about face. Is the AFC a ‘third force’ or a ‘terrible farce’?
Admittedly, I threw my support behind the AFC because I became convinced that the PPP, after fourteen years in power, was no better than the PNC. Further, since the PPP’s continued occupation of office is contingent on support and votes from Indian Guyanese, there is no way the ethnic tension in Guyana will ever be ameliorated. For example, the PPP, like all winning parties, has to find ways to reward its constituency, so it is inevitable to hear cries of discrimination, favoritism, cronyism and nepotism from those outside its constituency.
But for the two principal leaders of the AFC who could not work with their former reforms-resistant PPP and PNC – hence their departure to form the AFC – to now claim it is feasible to try and work with the same unreformed PPP and PNC under the shared governance umbrella, makes me wonder what were the leaders’ end game plan when the party was launched?
I vividly recall Mr. Trotman, in a well constructed diagnosis of what ails the PPP and PNC, concluding that the two parasitic parties need each other to survive, by demonizing each other and by exploiting the ethnic insecurities of their supporters. To tinker with this particular aspect of their survival, apparently is the equivalent of political suicide. So the PPP and PNC are stuck with each other and the people are stuck with them both.
To also demonstrate their designs on immutablity, consider the proposed recall legislation that would appear to the natural eye as a broadening or strengthening of the democratic process, but which legislation actually seeks to give parties the power take away seats from reform-minded and dissenting members in Parliament. Genuine recall legislation would expand the democratic process to actually allow voters, not parties, to be the ones to initiate a recall.
To Mr. Ramjattan’s credit, when asked in 2005, he noted that if an AFC member was expelled from the party, s/he would be allowed to retain her/his Parliamentary seat. But the AFC is not one of the majority parties that seek to retain their stranglehold by shutting out reformers and dissenters through the proposed recall legislation, so Mr. Ramjattan’s point is only good in principle.
In a nutshell, the PPP believes it is God’s gift to Indian Guyanese and the PNC believes it is God’s gift to African Guyanese. They both have deceived themselves into thinking that without them their supporters will suffer. But the reality is that both groups have been suffering immensely despite the fact that both the PNC and PPP held the reins of power for the past 43 years.
And this was why the AFC was born: to make a marked difference on the political landscape, rather than seek now to blend in and become one of ‘them’. As an avid sideline cheerleader of the AFC, I’m terribly disappointed and unless I am otherwise persuaded, I will have to throw in the towel that I now wave frantically and in unison with others as a show of support. I’d hate to know the AFC went from being Guyana’s last political hope to Guyana’s latest political hype.
Really, though, is shared governance Guyana’s best hope? Or is it a cop-out that empowers politicians but not the people?
