The AFC has been a victim of its own folly
May 29, 2017 , http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....im-of-its-own-folly/
If we accept the premise that the Cummingsburg Accord favored the AFC more than it did the APNU, then the test of whether the AFC has grounds for revising that accord would rest on the extent to which the terms of the accord have been honoured. It is the contention here that the real problem with the accord is not in terms of who its favors but the failure to honour many of its key provisions.
The Cummingsburg Accord was not intended to favour anyone. It was intended to create conditions of trust so that a pre-election coalition could have been established.
The AFC may have only brought 11 percent of the votes that the coalition attained but without that 11 percent the APNU+AFC would not be in power today. It is on that presumption that the AFC negotiated 40 percent of Cabinet positions and seats in the National Assembly.
The accord sought, also, to ensure that in any post-election arrangement, the AFC would not be marginalised. The accord has provisions, therefore, which granted the AFC 40 percent of the seats gained by the coalition in the National Assembly which effectively gave the AFC a veto over government policy.
But there was equally a check to ensure that the APNU would honour this arrangement by having an independent person as head of the parliamentary list so that in the event of differences the APNU could not arbitrarily recall the AFC parliamentarians.
The system of checks was extended within the government with the AFC holding a specified percentage of Cabinet, but this was rendered ineffective because there is no mechanism to ensure that policy could be approved by consensus.
The agreement provided comfort to Indians whose support would have been needed, to ensure that the coalition overcame the ethnic-voting barnacle. As such, the agreement provided for the key position of Minister of Home Affairs, now renamed Ministry of Public Security, to be held by the AFC, along with that of the Prime Minister.
The Cummingsburg Accord was a hurried arrangement and therefore there were many things which it did not contemplate. This creates grounds for a review but the major grouse is that certain aspects of the agreement were not honored, the most notable of which was the downgrading of the Prime Minister’s responsibilities.
The Office of the Prime Minister has been brought under the Presidency, the first time this has ever happened. The Cummingsburg Accord certainly did not contemplate this. Under the accord, the Prime Minister was supposed to hold responsibility for domestic affairs, a most powerful position. But this has not been honoured. Even before the Prime Minister was sworn in, the President, in his first act, announced the appointment of a Minister of State within the Ministry of Presidency, effectively signaling where the power on domestic affairs would reside.
The accord also provides for the Prime Minister to chair Cabinet. It was belatedly discovered that this was unconstitutional, so even that provision cannot be honoured. It shows the weaknesses of the accord.
The Cummingsburg Accord therefore only favours the AFC in theory. In reality, once that accord was honoured in the breach, the AFC cannot be said to have been favoured.
The AFC has added to its own miseries by not adopting an independent position, both in parliament and within the government. The AFC should have demanded that all Cabinet decisions be approved by a 75 percent majority. It should have also created a mechanism which would have allowed for all Bills and for the annual Budget to be vetted by the AFC, as a group, before the AFC parliamentarians give their consent. The AFC instead of becoming starry-eyed over being granted the posts of Vice Presidents should have been more concerned with ensuring that the post of Minister of State within the Ministry of the Presidency was dissolved.
The AFC should equally have demanded that the Prime Minister be given responsibilities for domestic affairs, in keeping with the terms of the Cummingsburg Accord. It should have demanded that all Ministers report to the Prime Minister, as was the case when Dr. Reid held such powers.
The present predicament which the AFC finds itself in is due to its own making. It has failed to take an independent stance. It allowed the powers of the Ministry of Home Affairs to be denuded of the immigration portfolio. Immigration is an important component of domestic security and the decision to carve this out to the APNU effectively hands the AFC half of a ministry. The Prime Minister’s responsibilities have also been degutted by the creation of a Minister of State and the conversion of a Ministry of the Presidency.
The problems with the Cummings Accord therefore are more about the failure to honour some of its key provisions. Unfortunately, the AFC has allowed the allure of political power and the trappings of political office to come in the way of its asserting its rights under that accord.