INSTEAD OF D-DAY, THE OPPOSITION GOT P-DAY
November 12, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source - Kaieteur News
The shock and the frustration on the faces of the supporters of both the AFC and APNU following the prorogation of parliament should come as no surprise. These supporters were hoping for a party, instead they got a “wake.”
The supporters of the parliamentary opposition parties were gleeful on the morning of November 10, 2014. They were anticipating the resignation of the government. After being out of power for over twenty years, nothing more would have gladdened the hearts of the opposition supporters than the humiliation of the government being forced to resign because of the passage of a no-confidence motion.
It did not matter what the grounds were for the no-confidence motion. The opposition supporters did not need any basis for the no-confidence motion. Any reason was good enough. In fact, the absurdity of a no-confidence motion without any stated reason has not yet dawned on these supporters.
The AFC was of course the party that was leading the charge. And its leaders were deflated when they learnt that the President had prorogued the parliament. They should now explain to the Guyanese people, and all of those who were planning to celebrate the downfall of the PPP government, why they never predicted that the government would resort to prorogation even though it is provided for in the Constitution. They should explain why they never saw prorogation coming even though there is recent precedent for such action as in Sri Lanka in 2001, and in Canada in 2008, of more recent vintage.
The opposition parties were caught napping. They ought to have predicted that prorogation was one of the options open to the government. They had to know that this option was utilized by Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada in 2008 to avoid a no-confidence motion against his minority government. It was the same situation in Sri Lanka in 2001. The opposition parties ought to have planned for such an eventuality. They did not. As such, they have no one but themselves to blame.
The AFC was the architect of the no-confidence motion. It has to take responsibility for what happened. APNU also has to accept some responsibility for going along with the AFC, when it is clear that it was and still is not in APNU’s interest to support the no-confidence motion.
APNU found itself between a rock and a hard place. It would have been difficult for APNU to not have indicated that it would support a no-confidence motion against the PPP. That would have played right into the AFC’s hands. And in the context of internal dissent within the PNCR, would have played right into the hands of those within the PNCR who are opposed to Mr. Granger. APNU was therefore obligated to express support for the no-confidence motion. This was the rock.
But APNU had to have seen the problems that such a motion would cause for the coalition. While it may not admit this publicly, unless APNU was confident of at the minimum winning a plurality of votes at elections, it made no practical sense for it to support the AFC’s no-confidence motion. Such support would force general elections within three months and if those elections handed a plurality once again to the PPP, nothing would have changed. APNU would have gambled and lost. This was the hard place.
APNU therefore tactically decided to press for local government elections, while still insisting that it would support the no-confidence motion tabled by the AFC. The government read between the lines and decided to have discussions with APNU on this issue.
During the course of these discussions, APNU felt that the government would accede to naming a date for local government elections. But the President was also between a rock and a hard place. How could he have set a date for local government elections when there was the possibility of a no-confidence motion forcing general elections?
APNU did not read between the lines. It did not realize that the President was seeking a deal. The deal was local government elections in return for a delay or non-support by APNU for the no-confidence motion. This was both a rational and reasonable position. APNU said it had no interest in further talks.The die was cast.
APNU could not now back down from supporting the no-confidence motion, but it also knew that it cannot win a plurality of votes at any elections called within three months, unless the AFC joined its partnership. The AFC said no. Then and there APNU should have said no deal.
It went along with pledging support for the no-confidence motion. Both the AFC and APNU had their supporters hyped up expecting D-Day on November 10. Instead of D-Day, they got P-Day.
My question to all of those who feel riled up by what the President has done is this: What would you as President have done in the face of a no-confidence motion? Would you have dissolved parliament or would you have prorogued parliament? Or would you have stood there and be humbled into resigning? Think about it!
Think about this also: If instead of proroguing parliament, the President had decided to dissolve parliament. This would have meant calling elections. Do you believe that with the AFC not joining with APNU, the latter could have commanded a plurality of the votes necessary to form the government? APNU, I am sure, does not believe that!
Source - http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....pposition-got-p-day/
