The AFC/APNU no-confidence motion has limited democratic legitimacy (Part 2)

SOME ordinary folks believe that the combined Opposition AFC/APNU no-confidence proposal is a joke. They believe that the no-confidence vote triggering a general and regional election will not change anything because of a possible recurrence of the same electoral equation in Parliament. And there is the view that AFC and APNU in Parliament should devote their energies toward keeping Guyana first and not consistently set out to decimate the PPP/C Government’s capital projects; and a further view that the constant hustle to bring the Government to its knees would accrue few positive dividends.

FranÇois Guizot

Indeed, the PPP/C Government can opt to call an election prior to any parliamentary debate on the no-confidence proposal. However, regardless of who or what triggers the calling of an election, ordinary people recognise that the PPP/C Government has a mandate from the electorate for five years to execute a programme, with which apparently APNU/AFC Opposition does not find favour.

Any Opposition can and should have the right to bring a no-confidence proposal against any Government, only if its hands are clean, in that it has not willfully obstruct the Government’s developmental programmes, an obstruction that would certainly mean working against ordinary people.   

On many occasions, APNU and AFC with a one-seat majority in Parliament have flexed their muscles relentlessly to reduce the PPP/C Government’s executive power to exercise its mandate; and now there is the AFC and APNU’s dangling of the no-confidence trick as their latest ploy.

“The role of the Opposition in a well-regulated representative Government is not limited to spying on the behaviour of the Government and to finding out and proclaiming its faults. Its principal mission is perhaps to point out improvements, to call for reforms that society is capable of accepting … Free of the weight of affairs, exempt from the immediate and definite responsibility that goes with governing, the Opposition generally takes the lead and proceeds boldly toward a more perfect civilisation. It points out the possible benefits and achievements. It urges and exhorts the Government to move forward for the good of the country.”

Last week’s Perspectives alluded to the limited democratic legitimacy of the AFC/APNU no-confidence proposal. This view of limited legitimacy arises out of the Opposition’s desperation to smell the leather, as it sets out each day to put a brake on everything the Government does; and in the process showing no concern for the crisis consuming the poor and vulnerable through its own veritable action.

The Opposition’s no-confidence proposal represents a rush to judgment; it takes no ownership for the possible consequences of that action; and in so doing, the Opposition shirks its responsibility to the nation, thereby evading fulfilment of its political function; FranÇois Guizot brings some sense of an Opposition’s responsibilities, thus:

“The role of the Opposition in a well-regulated representative Government is not limited to spying on the behaviour of the Government and to finding out and proclaiming its faults. Its principal mission is perhaps to point out improvements, to call for reforms that society is capable of accepting … Free of the

weight of affairs, exempt from the immediate and definite responsibility that goes with governing, the Opposition generally takes the lead and proceeds boldly toward a more perfect civilisation. It points out the possible benefits and achievements. It urges and exhorts the Government to move forward for the good of the country” (1).

An Opposition becomes effective when it is not happy only to condemn Governmental actions; if the Opposition is a genuine counter power, then it is beholden to the people to convince them that its position is correct and that of the Government is wrong (2).

This is not case in Guyana. Every day, ordinary people are afflicted with the combined Opposition’s condemnation of governmental actions, as if anything that the Government does is of no value to the people. Substantive and evidence-based criticisms are not part of the Opposition’s repertoire in the legislature. And even with the AFC/APNU no-confidence proposal, really a smokescreen, there is to wit, no substance that is necessary for establishing democratic legitimacy and no convincing argument that the no-confidence proposal is the right thing to do.

The only legitimacy that the Opposition can claim is the one to do with number, that is, having the one-seat majority symbolises its representation of the will of the majority. But this legitimacy, by itself, is insufficient as the legitimacy of any Opposition’s action is constantly examined on a case by case basis; and, therefore, on this occasion, there is mounting need for a substantial legitimacy to show whether the Opposition’s no-confidence proposal is for the common good and whether that no-confidence proposal acknowledges fundamental national values; and where elections singlehandedly cannot provide that substantial legitimacy (2).         

Of course, Governments, too, have to meet the requirements of achieving substantial legitimacy in formulating and implementing their policy programmes.

The critical question is whether the AFC/APNU no-confidence proposal is something good for the country and whether it is in the country’s interests; if the answer to this question is in the negative, then the combined Opposition does not have sufficient legitimacy to advance the no-confidence proposal. The no-confidence proposal also has to be assessed within the context of the downsizing and practical termination of some PPP/C Government’s capital projects.

In fact, APNU and AFC also may lack substantial legitimacy in their parliamentary actions to practically suppress Government’s capital programmes. Today in many societies, with sheer diversification of issues for development, the political function must embrace a ‘substantial’ legitimacy that extends beyond number (majority). Guyana’s democratic legitimacy in Government and Opposition needs to follow this new roadmap toward attaining substantial legitimacy. And at this time, the combined Opposition AFC/APNU’s no-confidence proposal has limited legitimacy, as its basis is ‘number’.