The AFC’s no-confidence gambit
Proroguing parliament may be a dangerous gambit. But it certainly is not as risky as the one that the opposition parties are taking in moving towards a no-confidence motion.
The opposition parties are taking a major risk in moving ahead with a no-confidence motion. It is now clear that there will be no pre-election coalition between APNU and the AFC. The AFC sees any such coalition as an act of political suicide, even though it must be clear to the AFC that it cannot on its own command a plurality of the votes.
APNU on the other hand may not be confident of gaining a plurality of the votes unless the AFC joins its partnership. But the AFC is not prepared to do this.
The most realistic perspective is that the PPP will regain the Presidency, but the opposition will dominate a hung parliament. The worst case scenario is that the PPP will regain the majority.
This is the gambit that the opposition parties are employing. It is a high-stakes gamble, far more dangerous than the President beating them to the punch by proroguing parliament and calling snap elections.
The AFC wants to have the honour of forcing the PPP government to resign, the first time this would happen in the English-speaking Caribbean. The PPP is prepared to repel this possibility. They have the constitutional option of proroguing parliament before the AFC’s no-confidence motion, thus avoiding the embarrassment of resigning.
The end result of both gambits, that is, either the government resigns on the passage of a no-confidence motion or the President prorogues parliament, will be the same. Either way, elections will have to be held. But if the government prorogues parliament it will avoid the embarrassment of having to resign.
The AFC is fearful that the PPP will try to rule without the legislature. It should not fear this. The PPP is not going to give the opposition parties, especially the PNCR, a party known for its propensity for violence, an excuse to topple it through extra-constitutional means. The PPP is ready for elections. Any decision to prorogue parliament will be solely a face-saving one for the PPP.
But what about the risk that the opposition parties are taking? What if fresh elections return the PPP to power either with a majority or as a minority government? Where does that leave the opposition parties? They would have gambled and lost.
Well, if in any fresh elections APNU fails to gain a plurality and form the government it would have lost corn and husk. The AFC also loses, but not as much as APNU. In fact, this whole gambit about the no-confidence motion is a three-card trick that the AFC is playing on APNU.
AFC knows that it cannot win a plurality of the votes. It cannot possibly increase its tally of seats sufficient to gain the Executive. But it has been steadily increasing the number of seats that it has obtained since it began to contest general elections. It is likely that its short–term goal is to become the main parliamentary opposition.
In other words, the AFC may not be out to win the next elections that it is hoping to force through its no-confidence motion. The AFC may be hoping to get enough seats at those elections to overtake APNU, thus becoming the main opposition party and demanding the position of Leader of the Opposition.
Having commanded the position of Leader of the Opposition, the government would be forced to negotiate directly with whoever is the AFC’s leader, thus allowing the AFC greater political leverage and a major role in negotiating with government, including in making constitutional appointments.
The AFC‘s no-confidence motion may therefore be more than just about forcing fresh elections. It may be a tactical manoeuvre to outfox APNU, seize political turf from them, and steal the position of Leader of the Opposition.
That plan may have hinged in part on securing political capital and support by forcing the government to resign in the wake of a no-confidence motion. The AFC would gain a great deal of support if it is seen as the party that brought down the PPP.
The AFC, however, did not seem to cater for the fact that the government would negate that possibility by calling snap elections after proroguing parliament.
The AFC has not covered all its bases. Neither has APNU. Their gambit looks like it may backfire.