These have been a strange two weeks in Guyana’s politics. On September 9, Leader of the Opposition David Granger wrote a letter to President Donald Ramotar reminding him that the Local Authorities (Elections) (Amendment) Bill passed by the National Assembly earlier this year required local government elections to be held on or before August 1, 2014. As everyone knows, these were not held within the time-frame set out in the bill. In his letter Mr Granger therefore called on the President to announce the date for these polls, failing which his party would “be obliged to take any lawful action to mobilise national and international support in defence of local democracy the Constitution and the rights of the Guyanese people.”

In the first place citizens were probably a little nonplussed on account of the fact that their understanding was that APNU would be supporting the AFC’s no-confidence motion when that was tabled after Parliament reconvened in October. The passage of this motion would lead inexorably to a general election within three months, so the letter, therefore, gave rise to the appearance, at least, of a contradiction, and raised the possibility that APNU intended to renege on its commitment to lend support to the AFC on this issue. In the second place, of course, people must have wondered what kind of “lawful action” the APNU leader had in mind, since his options were very limited, and he had shown little appetite hitherto for taking to the streets.

The deadline duly arrived with no move on the government side to name a date, and we quoted Mr Granger as saying that he would be “meeting with his team and partners to discuss the next steps.” This was especially curious, suggesting, as it did, that APNU had not worked out exactly how it intended to proceed if the government ignored the ultimatum. Surely even the least politically conscious person on the street could have advised them that the administration would not comply with the demand for local elections, so how did those who direct the affairs of the main opposition party not appear to grasp this simple point or plan for it? In addition, of course, the political classes mused about what the point was of issuing an ultimatum where there were no consequences. Apart from anything else, that is to project an image of weakness, not strength.

The perplexity continued when the APNU Leader was quoted in our report of September 16 as saying, “There will be no fireworks in the sky tomorrow [after the ultimatum expires]… my aim is not to astonish the public… It is to get President Donald Ramotar to fulfil his constitutional obligation…” The public nevertheless was astonished, if not quite for the reasons Mr Granger had in mind.

As for the government, when President Ramotar did respond to Mr Granger’s letter, he seized on the contradiction and “ambiguity” which it implied. In brief, his query was, did APNU want local government polls or a general election? This was not a question for the Head of State to ask in this specific context of course, although it would be one for the AFC to put to Mr Granger. As far as the administration is concerned, no motion which could lead to a national poll has been tabled as yet, let alone passed, and it is consequently obliged to give an answer about why it will not hold local government elections. It does not have a rational answer to this, of course, so it did not hesitate to seize on what everyone except APNU, it seems, sees as an inconsistency of approach.

The criticisms about a contradiction appear to have penetrated the walls of Sophia fairly quickly, because the day after the letter was made public, the party scrambled to reassure everyone – more particularly its constituency one presumes – that it was committed to supporting the no-confidence motion in Parliament. This notwithstanding, it hardly constituted a clarification of its thinking, which others have contended arose out of a need to regain the initiative which they felt had been lost to the AFC with their no-confidence motion.

Before Mr Granger got around to announcing what his plans were following the ultimatum, on Wednesday, Mayor Hamilton Green and some city councillors attempted to hold a meeting and prayer service in the City Hall compound in support of the former’s call. They were thwarted, however, by acting Town Clerk Ms Carol Sooba who locked the gates, which precipitated the hurling of some insults across the fence.

Two days later, in an address to the nation, the APNU Leader announced plans for the holding of public protests to press for local government elections. “We have… embarked on a campaign of lawful, orderly, peaceful public protests – including picketing, rallies and vigils – to raise public awareness of the threat to our collective rights.” Leaving aside the fact that one would have thought the public was only too well aware already of the threat to our collective rights, one can only wonder what this is supposed to achieve. To be able to exert any kind of pressure at all, the turn-out would have to be huge, and ordinary people simply don’t have the appetite for that at this stage. What is the point, therefore, of an empty gesture?

Yesterday we reported the Private Sector Commission as questioning the timing of Mr Granger’s call for protests in view of the no-confidence vote. Mr Ramesh Persaud, the head of the PSC, also said that the resort to public protests was never welcome as a “dispute resolution tool,” while one imagines too, that at the back of his mind was the thought of the holiday season coming up, and the potential for the disruption of commerce whether the protests are peaceful or not.

But Mr Persaud is not mistaken about the proximity of this action to the reconvening of Parliament and the vote on the motion. What can be accomplished in such a short space of time, more especially if, as APNU says, it is lending its votes in favour of the motion? Once that has passed, then a general election would automatically take precedence. This is not to say that ideally local government elections should not be held first, but the way events have played out there is every likelihood the government would dig in its heels until October because it has no need to do otherwise – unless, that is, for some reason unknown to everyone it suddenly decides it wants a local poll after all, rather than a national one. In the unlikely event it does decide that, however, it would not be because APNU is on the streets.

It is hardly worth mentioning that protests in the past have not always been peaceful and orderly, although some of them certainly have been. It is the former which lodge in the public memory, however, not the latter, and the mere word ‘protest’ plays into the propaganda scheme of the governing party. If Mr Granger finds he cannot maintain the kind of discipline and control on the streets he would like, Freedom House would regard that as a gift, would drag out all the stereotypes and defamatory innuendos, and would go to a general election with a lighter step.

In other words, logic should have suggested to Mr Granger that once his party was going with a no-confidence motion, there was no room for protests on local government elections. He should have waited until after October, to see what was going to happen on the no-confidence front first; it may be that the government will expend effort in trying to avoid that too, and if so, they would be evading both national and local government polls. That would be the time to evaluate strategy, and decide how pressure could best be exerted to achieve the latter, if not the former.