Granger’s winner-take-all record
In Linden last Saturday, President Granger made an announcement that your semantic description of it depends on your political outlook. If you are anti-government, then the adjective will be a harsh one. Those who study politics will prefer to refrain from excessive labeling and substitute academic language.
For the purpose of this assessment here, I would use the word “record” in evaluating the President’s presentation. The announcement was that his government because it is a coalition, first because of the nature of the APNU make-up, then APNU’s platform with the AFC, was from the beginning of its rise to power, a formation that rejected winner-take-all politics.
If the APNU+AFC government is not a winner-take-all regime then Georgetown is not the capital of Guyana, the Essequibo River is in Barbados, and Chris Gayle plays for the Amazon Warriors. It cannot get more bizarre than that. Let us examine the record of the Granger presidency, which according to the President himself is not practising the game of winner-take-all political economy.
The narrowest victory in a general election since self-government in 1950 is the results of the May 2015 poll. So close it was that it was a one percent split in favour of the APNU+AFC that made the difference. In other words, the APNU+AFC did not go get over the 50 percent mark by one percent making the result 51 versus 49. APNU+AFC got 50.6 percent. We should mention, too, that in the ten regional parliamentary seats, APNU+AFC won Region Eight by a single vote.
The difference in the May 2015 results between APNU+AFC and the PPP was extremely narrow. If any government with such a thin hold on power needed to have a canopy of support from outside its womb, it was the APNU+AFC government.
But winner-take all games began to play out from the beginning. Here is the record of the Granger presidency that not only glaringly contradicts his Linden statement but raises the question if it was not an electioneering presentation.
First, in Mr. Granger’s multi-party formation, APNU, the WPA made formidable accusations against ANPU’s leadership. The WPA using pellucid language adumbrated a case of lack of democratic consultation within APNU’s structure, charging that the WPA was never consulted. This situation was exacerbated by the Roopnaraine imbroglio.
WPA issued a press release claiming that it did not select its Cabinet member and that such a member, Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine was appointed without consulting the WPA.
The press statement came about because the WPA argued that Roopnarane was removed from the Education Ministry without the WPA’s consent.
The theatre of the absurd took place when Roopnaraine resigned from Government then cancelled the resignation with the WPA screaming that it knew nothing about Roopnaraine’s decision and the change of mind.
Four years after achieving power, the WPA still makes the pronouncement that it is not being brought into the decision-making machinery of government.
Secondly, the AFC held a retreat in 2017 at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre, which ended in a formal declaration that the Ministry of the Presidency has too many jurisdictions and it wants a formal reduction of the vast array of power assigned to Minister Harmon.
It elicited no changes in Harmon’s outlay from President Granger.
The third example involves the Chronicle. Two iconic Guyanese, David Hinds and Lincoln Lewis, not known for any political association with the parliamentary opposition party were removed as columnists, no doubt because of criticism of some of the government’s directions.
This contradiction obviously motivates one to ask the question – if you cannot tolerate your own, why would you reach out to the other side, meaning the opposition?
Fourthly, the teachers’ union not known for any association with the opposition party before and after Independence took industrial action because of breakdown of talks and rejected being coerced to accept an arbitration Chairman that was selected by the government itself.
Fifthly, the unions at the university began an attitude of confrontation over the policies and attitude of the UG Vice Chancellor. The situation didn’t appear to have a mediating hand of the government.
Finally, here is the biggest example that contradicts Granger’s position that his government does not practice winner-takes all politics. The most outstanding inclusive institution in Guyana whereby government and opposition meet each other half way was abandoned by David Granger.
The Carter formula was accepted by the five PPP presidents since 1992. Mr. Granger rejected the Carter formula and appointed his own Chairman of GECOM. The AFC said it agreed with the president’s decision but it was not consulted in the choice of Justice Patterson. Since 2015, the winner is taking all.