Mr. Ramjattan’s analysis of the role of Third Parties in race-based politics is interesting
January 28, 2012 | By KNews | Filed Under Letters
DEAR EDITOR,
The Chairman of Alliance for Change (AFC) Khemraj Ramjattan has made an interesting analysis of the role of Third Parties in race-based politics which needs to be discussed in depth, and I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this discussion.
All political parties are coalitions of numerous interest groups and therein lies a cause for dissent, since it is unlikely in a changing political environment that any party can serve the needs of all its interest groups all the time.
However, what is more often the case is the usurping of power by groups of individuals who then establish a bureaucratic stranglehold over the party. This is then copied when they gain political power, leading to the blurring of lines between party and government.
In this entrenched position they become a law unto themselves which results in splits and break away groups emerging as more and more individuals become frustrated with not being able to change what is happening around them. Hence they seek redress elsewhere, which is a natural phenomenon of most maturing democratic societies with a history dominated by race, class and/or religion.
Put another way, splits are inevitable where and when differences are exploited to perpetuate the self-serving interest of a dominant group within the ruling party, with individuals often the brightest in the party having to find new homes to fulfil their political aspirations.
The emergence of Third Parties in Guyanese politics is a direct result of the failure of the PNC and the PPP to make any serious attempt to address the ‘Race Question’ and on occasions openly fuelling it, to gain short term political mileage. This is aided by the winner-take-all politics of Guyana where the governing party has immense patronage and power at its disposal and uses this to reward and corrupt those who serve its interest.
Defections result in the formation of new political parties, for example in the 1970s, we saw the emergence of a string of parties including the WPA and in the 2000s, among others, the AFC. Unlike the WPA, a number of AFC leaders held prominent positions in both the PNC and the PPP and had firsthand experience of the corruption that drove them out. The AFC fought the elections on an anti-PPP ticket, with particular emphasis on the endemic level that corruption had reached during its time in office. A further difference is AFC has 7 seats in the Legislative Assembly and is in the position to bring about fundamental change in Guyanese politics.
The big question is what it does now; that will determine whether its influence will be a flash in the pan and important as it is, “helped to stave off post-elections violence” or working with the much larger APNU and hammer out a ‘Programme for Change’ ’ while laying the foundation of becoming the party of government.
To start with, the opposition must get tough with the PPP and let them know that they may be in office but not in power. It must stop the PPP from further corrupting the political process by stopping it from making any more senior appointments, issuing licences or contracts. It must demand equal access to the public broadcasting service and holding of local elections. The opposition must in accordance to its majority in the National Assembly, hold the Chairmanship to a majority of the scrutiny subcommittees. The straight answer is, not who it supports but what it supports.
It is neither inevitable that a Third Party can prevent violence and/or allow greater opportunities for participation.
The relevance of a Third Party is where it stands on the issues that divide people and how it proposes to resolve them so it can have the desired result.
In Guyana, the essential divide is race and the cronyism that it breeds.
Most of us know that this behaviour is now the accepted culture of the PPP and that they are incapable of doing anything about it. Even their traditional core supporters are in large numbers beginning to understand that what they are doing is wrong and is in nobody’s interest but the few it serves.
Furthermore, that it has resulted in the widening of the gulf between the haves and the have-nots.
The AFC more than any other party has benefited from this disaffection, and how it responds to the trust given to it will determine it future.
Basil Bollers
source
January 28, 2012 | By KNews | Filed Under Letters
DEAR EDITOR,
The Chairman of Alliance for Change (AFC) Khemraj Ramjattan has made an interesting analysis of the role of Third Parties in race-based politics which needs to be discussed in depth, and I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this discussion.
All political parties are coalitions of numerous interest groups and therein lies a cause for dissent, since it is unlikely in a changing political environment that any party can serve the needs of all its interest groups all the time.
However, what is more often the case is the usurping of power by groups of individuals who then establish a bureaucratic stranglehold over the party. This is then copied when they gain political power, leading to the blurring of lines between party and government.
In this entrenched position they become a law unto themselves which results in splits and break away groups emerging as more and more individuals become frustrated with not being able to change what is happening around them. Hence they seek redress elsewhere, which is a natural phenomenon of most maturing democratic societies with a history dominated by race, class and/or religion.
Put another way, splits are inevitable where and when differences are exploited to perpetuate the self-serving interest of a dominant group within the ruling party, with individuals often the brightest in the party having to find new homes to fulfil their political aspirations.
The emergence of Third Parties in Guyanese politics is a direct result of the failure of the PNC and the PPP to make any serious attempt to address the ‘Race Question’ and on occasions openly fuelling it, to gain short term political mileage. This is aided by the winner-take-all politics of Guyana where the governing party has immense patronage and power at its disposal and uses this to reward and corrupt those who serve its interest.
Defections result in the formation of new political parties, for example in the 1970s, we saw the emergence of a string of parties including the WPA and in the 2000s, among others, the AFC. Unlike the WPA, a number of AFC leaders held prominent positions in both the PNC and the PPP and had firsthand experience of the corruption that drove them out. The AFC fought the elections on an anti-PPP ticket, with particular emphasis on the endemic level that corruption had reached during its time in office. A further difference is AFC has 7 seats in the Legislative Assembly and is in the position to bring about fundamental change in Guyanese politics.
The big question is what it does now; that will determine whether its influence will be a flash in the pan and important as it is, “helped to stave off post-elections violence” or working with the much larger APNU and hammer out a ‘Programme for Change’ ’ while laying the foundation of becoming the party of government.
To start with, the opposition must get tough with the PPP and let them know that they may be in office but not in power. It must stop the PPP from further corrupting the political process by stopping it from making any more senior appointments, issuing licences or contracts. It must demand equal access to the public broadcasting service and holding of local elections. The opposition must in accordance to its majority in the National Assembly, hold the Chairmanship to a majority of the scrutiny subcommittees. The straight answer is, not who it supports but what it supports.
It is neither inevitable that a Third Party can prevent violence and/or allow greater opportunities for participation.
The relevance of a Third Party is where it stands on the issues that divide people and how it proposes to resolve them so it can have the desired result.
In Guyana, the essential divide is race and the cronyism that it breeds.
Most of us know that this behaviour is now the accepted culture of the PPP and that they are incapable of doing anything about it. Even their traditional core supporters are in large numbers beginning to understand that what they are doing is wrong and is in nobody’s interest but the few it serves.
Furthermore, that it has resulted in the widening of the gulf between the haves and the have-nots.
The AFC more than any other party has benefited from this disaffection, and how it responds to the trust given to it will determine it future.
Basil Bollers
source
The AFC underestimated the Granger factor in the last election. Like I said during the campaign, I will be happy even if it is only one seat that the AFC won and it has the balance power. I beleive the AFC can narrow the gap of the great race divide, if it persists in adhering to a steady course of action.
lol