February 25, 2016 Source
IT’s been a year and 10 days since the APNU and the AFC signed the historic February 14 Cummingsburg Accord which created the APNU+AFC Coalition. Three months later, the Coalition would dethrone the PPP at the General and Regional elections. It was an unlikely victory largely because of our historic, ethnic voting patterns, which had hitherto given the PPP the electoral advantage.
Many analysts have concluded that the Coalition won the election not because of any change in those voting patterns; rather, they emerged the victors in spite of the ethnic voting patterns. The critical element was the emergence of the Coalition, which served as a potent mobilising tool for the traditional and potential supporters of the constituent parties.
The road to the Cummingsburg Accord was not a smooth one—there were numerous obstacles in the way. The process had begun as far back as the 2006 elections when a group of parties, convinced that no single opposition party on its own could defeat the PPP, attempted to put together a Third Force to break the monopoly of the two major parties. Critical to that initiative was the newly formed Alliance For Change (AFC), which came into being with the expressed intention of carving out an independent space based on non-alignment with the two older parties.
The Working People’s Alliance (WPA), which was once the leading Third Party and which like the AFC had championed the non-alignment approach seemed more open to an All-Opposition Coalition that included the PNC. Inevitably, the initiative fell apart on that very issue. The AFC contested the election on its own and did surprisingly well by drawing support from the PNC’s traditional base.
By the time of the 2011 election, the matter of an All-Opposition alliance was again put on the agenda. This time the WPA was even more forthcoming, but the AFC remained adamant that it would not enter into an alliance with the PNC. For that party, the policy of non-alignment had become a dogma. The PNC, the WPA and a group of Ex-Military personnel loyal to David Granger along with some smaller parties entered into an alliance that came to be known as the APNU. In a three-way race, the APNU and the AFC were able to garner a majority of the popular vote to take control of the Parliament. The PPP, however, maintained control of the Presidency and the Executive Branch with its plurality of the votes.
The AFC, which was joined by the popular Moses Nagamootoo just before the election, maintained its share of the votes, but this time its overwhelming support came from the PPP’s support base. It was obvious that this latter development was the major factor behind the PPP’s loss of its accustomed majority.
Despite their uneasy relationship in Parliament, the APNU and the AFC managed to maintain a united front against the PPP. But the AFC still stuck to its dogma of no alliance with the PNC. This was reflected by the party’s unilateral move to a vote of no-confidence against the government. The APNU was never full-throttled in its support of the motion and preferred its own agenda, which centred on the demand for Local Government Elections.
Then out of the blue, at its Members Conference in December 2014, The AFC leader urged his party to drop its non-alignment stance and embrace an alliance with the APNU. From all reports, the initiative was not initially embraced by a majority of the leadership, but as with these matters, once the top leadership was on board it was a done deal. The APNU, for its part, was caught by surprise, but even so there was not much enthusiasm for the Coalition.
However, the two sides proceeded to negotiations. The AFC, it seemed, bargained aggressively; it demanded the Presidential Candidate, along with a substantial portion of the slate, parliamentary seats and in the event of victory, the Cabinet. There was much debate in the media over the top spot on the ticket with many arguing in favour of one candidate over the other. In the end, the two sides arrived at an agreement with the APNU leader as the Presidential candidate.
The AFC was able to get almost every other demand. After some debate by supporters of the two sides on the merits and demerits of the Accord, the campaign began in earnest and the rest is now history.
Since assuming office, there has been much speculation that the APNU has violated the Accord, particularly as it relates to the functions of the Prime Minister. Some AFC supporters appeared to be quite disgruntled, but as was done recently the AFC leader assured the country that all was well with the Accord.
There is no doubt that the Coalition has brought renewed optimism in the country about the political process. While it does not come close to being a Government of National Unity, the Coalition shows what can be achieved on that front if political leaders and parties are prepared to compromise. Perhaps, the biggest compromise in the process was between the WPA and the PNC, two parties which engaged in bitter confrontations in the 1970s and 1980s and which still have ongoing tensions, especially as it relates to the assassination of WPA leader, Dr. Walter Rodney.
Coalitions by their very nature are tenuous.
The experience in our sister CARICOM country, Trinidad and Tobago, tells that story. Two Unity governments in the last 30 years have both lasted a single term in office. The National Alliance for Reconstruction government 1986-91 literally imploded while the People’s Partnership 2010-15 suffered from domination by the big party and never gained traction. These are lessons that the APNU+AFC Coalition should pay close attention to. In the final analysis, one has to give credit to the Coalition; they have survived many hurdles.
In the process they have given the country some hope that adversaries can work together in the interest of the country. Here is hoping that in the not-too- distant future the other faction of our political spectrum can see the light and join the Unity Train. Guyana can only benefit from such a development.
