THE BALL IS IN APNU’S COURT

January 14, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

It is unreasonable for APNU to expect the government to welcome and support its proposal for a social contract. Right now the relationship between APNU and the government is extremely strained and therefore it is inevitable for mistrust to be present whenever APNU makes a proposal to the government.

APNU must say why the government would have reservations over proposals by the opposition. APNU has not dealt with the government in good faith. Since the Donald Ramotar administration took over, APNU has been guilty of conduct that generates mistrust.

APNU, itself, created an environment of apprehension after it suggested that there were irregularities in the 2011 elections that would have a bearing on the presidency. Instead of accepting the official declared results, APNU demanded to have copies of the statements of polls and the list of result as per polling station even though APNU did have a presence in  a substantive number of polling stations nationwide and would have already had copies of the very statements of polls that it was requesting.

In parliament, APNU combined with the AFC to reconfigure the composition of the various committees. The manner in which this was done led the government to conclude that what was afoot was an attempt to administer the affairs of the country from the opposition benches when the Constitution is quite explicit as to who exercises Executive power.

The Constitution contemplates a situation in which a party gaining a minority of the votes can hold such power. Burnham knew that the PNC would never attain a majority.

He was virulently opposed to coalition governments and thus designed the Constitution in a way that opened the possibility of the PNC gaining power with a minority of the votes.

Further mistrust was engendered by the brutal manner in which APNU and the AFC went about cutting the 2012 Budget. Eventually there were productive negotiations between APNU and the government on this question. The two sides were on the brink of a historic development that would have set the stage for improved relations. But APNU then withdrew leading to escalation of tensions.

There has been no improvement in the relationship between APNU and the government since and the differences have widened over major infrastructural projects.

The government made available to the opposition parties all the major agreements that it had signed. It went as far also in having special briefings for the opposition parties on the Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project. Instead of using the opportunity of those briefings and meetings to vent its concerns, APNU instead withdrew its support for the project.

The government was outraged and accused APNU of acting in bad faith by not raising its concerns.

The same thing happened over the Anti-Money Laundering and the Countering of Terrorism Bill which the government felt should have been supported. The government was forced to bring the Bill once again to the Assembly because it felt that APNU was prevaricating.

APNU in turn had concerns over the government’s attitude towards the establishment of a Public Procurement Commission and the President’s refusal to assent to Bills it had passed. APNU seems oblivious to the convention that no Bills, except those on moral issues should be brought to the House unless it has the support of the government.

This is a time-honoured convention. However, the opposition parties seem bent on using their one-seat majority to introduce legislation which only adds to the suspicions by the government that the opposition parties are attempting to administer the Executive from the benches of parliament.

What however really soured the relationship between the government and the opposition parties; was the stance they took in relation to the Minister of Home Affairs. In effect the opposition parties wanted to move a motion of no-confidence against a Minister and use that to force his resignation.

The result of all of this is increased mistrust between the opposition and the government. APNU must therefore accept that merely making proposals will not end this mistrust. It must demonstrate good faith it is serious about bringing the government on board in proposal for a social contract.

It is not sufficient also for APNU to indicate that it does not want confrontation over the forthcoming Budget. It has to convince the government that its aim is not to disrupt development or to attempt to run the affairs of the government from the opposition benches.

It will only be able to do so by being magnanimous. There has never been any other route to increased political cooperation.

If however, APNU continues to be defiant in the face of court rulings, whether preliminary or not; if it insists on passing its own legislation and expects the President to rubber stamp these; and if is protracts this untenable opposition to any proposed Bill introduced by the Minister of Home Affairs, then its social contract will join the long list of proposals that never see the light of day.