The APNU-AFC-PPP Speaker debacle confirms Guyana’s failed political system
JANUARY 6
Dear Editor,
This country is a basket case. There is no other way to put it. The real problem in Guyana’s political system is the political parties.
Largely ethno-centric and dominated by selfish, inept and Machiavellian minds, these parties continue to hobble the development of this nation.
November 28, 2011 was supposed to be a wake-up call. Instead, it has become a recurring nightmare.
From the PPP barefaced picking of virtually the same Cabinet to APNU fool’s masquerade that is, its current protest for protest sake, to the impasse between the AFC and APNU over the Speaker, to APNU’s inability to count just over two thousand statements of poll (SOP) and tell us the results, we keep getting the same signals of stupidity, arrogance and the ‘me, me, me’ mentality that cripples this country from political charlatans calling themselves representatives of the people.
What to make of this Speaker impasse? The PPP claims it is entitled to it by virtue of winning the most seats. APNU and the AFC claim it by virtue of controlling the majority in Parliament. The PPP knows it has no rightful entitlement.
Between the AFC and APNU, the larger party (APNU) should pick the Speaker. I don’t know of any Parliament anywhere in which a party with seven out of sixty-five seats such as the AFC holds the Speaker chair. I seriously don’t know on what legitimate grounds the AFC believes it is entitled to the Speaker position.
If the AFC is negotiating away its independence and standing as an intermediary party in Parliament in order to gain a Speaker post, it must be condemned. If the AFC is somehow cutting a deal with APNU that gives the AFC the Speaker title for the AFC’s unwavering commitment to APNU’s legislative agenda and manoeuvres in Parliament, it must be soundly vilified.
Truthfully, this Speaker fiasco should be a wake up call for the AFC and an opportunity to carve out a proper position of independence in Parliament. The fact that the AFC is at loggerheads with APNU is a clear signal to the public that the AFC is going to have its own position, which will differ from APNU.
AFC needs to profit from this dispute and to build on that image by dropping the Speaker fight and publicly restating its position as an autonomous party and not some Parliamentary lackey of APNU.
Despite APNU’s entitlement to the selection of the Speaker, it cannot harm APNU to consider giving the AFC the Speaker role as an offering for the AFC’s support and as an inducement for a prolonged combined working relationship in Parliament.
While Nagamootoo possesses all the valuable propensities for the Speaker role, APNU’s trust issues respecting Nagamootoo cannot be overlooked.
As the major partner in the opposition, it cannot be disregarded. APNU fears Nagamootoo could use the Speaker’s vote to break the deadlock by voting for the PPP or voting against APNU and the majority opposition at times.
If Nagamootoo refuses to vote, the Parliament is deadlocked. APNU wants a party hack who will toe the line and it cannot be blamed for that position in a Parliament where the majority clings by a single vote. Nagamootoo is too much of a maverick in this sense.
In fact, Nagamootoo is better suited for the Parliamentary trenches where he could scathingly hold both the PPP and APNU to account.
Now,(Deborah) Backer is not necessarily a better candidate for Speaker than Nagamootoo. However, Backer is the choice of the largest party in an opposition-controlled majority Parliament.
The AFC should respect that fact. The question is whether this insistence on Nagamootoo getting the Speaker role is coming from Nagamootoo or from the AFC’s leadership sans Nagamootoo.
Either way, the demand should be dropped and the business of Parliament gotten on with. No one is entitled to anything in this country.
If Nagamootoo is driving the AFC’s pursuit of the Speaker role, he should know that the allegations of power drunkenness that the PPP tried to pin on him during the election campaign will rear its ugly countenance the longer this nightmare rolls on.
Maybe the AFC is using this Speaker impasse to test APNU’s resolve and to prove its political mettle. If this is the case, we got the message.
The AFC must now stop its foolishness and move on. The AFC should be publicly pursuing a Parliamentary strategy of strategic engagement, meaning it will support whichever party (PPP or APNU) has the best agenda and accommodates its own agenda best.
This would mean voting for the PPP at times and APNU at other times or not voting at all on some occasions. This entire tragedy underlines the real problem with Guyana’s politics lies with political parties.
Political parties in Guyana are filled with hard-headed, tactless and small-minded individuals who are consumed with power, self-aggrandisement and pettiness.
If this Speaker disaster is the template for the future, more Guyanese will be disgusted and turned off from political participation and we will have a Parliament of knaves and warmongers.
M. Maxwell
JANUARY 6
Dear Editor,
This country is a basket case. There is no other way to put it. The real problem in Guyana’s political system is the political parties.
Largely ethno-centric and dominated by selfish, inept and Machiavellian minds, these parties continue to hobble the development of this nation.
November 28, 2011 was supposed to be a wake-up call. Instead, it has become a recurring nightmare.
From the PPP barefaced picking of virtually the same Cabinet to APNU fool’s masquerade that is, its current protest for protest sake, to the impasse between the AFC and APNU over the Speaker, to APNU’s inability to count just over two thousand statements of poll (SOP) and tell us the results, we keep getting the same signals of stupidity, arrogance and the ‘me, me, me’ mentality that cripples this country from political charlatans calling themselves representatives of the people.
What to make of this Speaker impasse? The PPP claims it is entitled to it by virtue of winning the most seats. APNU and the AFC claim it by virtue of controlling the majority in Parliament. The PPP knows it has no rightful entitlement.
Between the AFC and APNU, the larger party (APNU) should pick the Speaker. I don’t know of any Parliament anywhere in which a party with seven out of sixty-five seats such as the AFC holds the Speaker chair. I seriously don’t know on what legitimate grounds the AFC believes it is entitled to the Speaker position.
If the AFC is negotiating away its independence and standing as an intermediary party in Parliament in order to gain a Speaker post, it must be condemned. If the AFC is somehow cutting a deal with APNU that gives the AFC the Speaker title for the AFC’s unwavering commitment to APNU’s legislative agenda and manoeuvres in Parliament, it must be soundly vilified.
Truthfully, this Speaker fiasco should be a wake up call for the AFC and an opportunity to carve out a proper position of independence in Parliament. The fact that the AFC is at loggerheads with APNU is a clear signal to the public that the AFC is going to have its own position, which will differ from APNU.
AFC needs to profit from this dispute and to build on that image by dropping the Speaker fight and publicly restating its position as an autonomous party and not some Parliamentary lackey of APNU.
Despite APNU’s entitlement to the selection of the Speaker, it cannot harm APNU to consider giving the AFC the Speaker role as an offering for the AFC’s support and as an inducement for a prolonged combined working relationship in Parliament.
While Nagamootoo possesses all the valuable propensities for the Speaker role, APNU’s trust issues respecting Nagamootoo cannot be overlooked.
As the major partner in the opposition, it cannot be disregarded. APNU fears Nagamootoo could use the Speaker’s vote to break the deadlock by voting for the PPP or voting against APNU and the majority opposition at times.
If Nagamootoo refuses to vote, the Parliament is deadlocked. APNU wants a party hack who will toe the line and it cannot be blamed for that position in a Parliament where the majority clings by a single vote. Nagamootoo is too much of a maverick in this sense.
In fact, Nagamootoo is better suited for the Parliamentary trenches where he could scathingly hold both the PPP and APNU to account.
Now,(Deborah) Backer is not necessarily a better candidate for Speaker than Nagamootoo. However, Backer is the choice of the largest party in an opposition-controlled majority Parliament.
The AFC should respect that fact. The question is whether this insistence on Nagamootoo getting the Speaker role is coming from Nagamootoo or from the AFC’s leadership sans Nagamootoo.
Either way, the demand should be dropped and the business of Parliament gotten on with. No one is entitled to anything in this country.
If Nagamootoo is driving the AFC’s pursuit of the Speaker role, he should know that the allegations of power drunkenness that the PPP tried to pin on him during the election campaign will rear its ugly countenance the longer this nightmare rolls on.
Maybe the AFC is using this Speaker impasse to test APNU’s resolve and to prove its political mettle. If this is the case, we got the message.
The AFC must now stop its foolishness and move on. The AFC should be publicly pursuing a Parliamentary strategy of strategic engagement, meaning it will support whichever party (PPP or APNU) has the best agenda and accommodates its own agenda best.
This would mean voting for the PPP at times and APNU at other times or not voting at all on some occasions. This entire tragedy underlines the real problem with Guyana’s politics lies with political parties.
Political parties in Guyana are filled with hard-headed, tactless and small-minded individuals who are consumed with power, self-aggrandisement and pettiness.
If this Speaker disaster is the template for the future, more Guyanese will be disgusted and turned off from political participation and we will have a Parliament of knaves and warmongers.
M. Maxwell
. 