THE WHOLE IS LESS THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS

February 20, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source - Kaieteur News

Not many people took the Alliance for Change (AFC) seriously when it indicated that it was in favour of an election coalition with A Partnership for National Unity (APNU). Not many people felt such an arrangement would materialize.

The reason why people felt that an opposition coalition would not materialize was because the AFC had put on the table a non-negotiable position: that it had to lead such a grouping.  No one expected APNU to give in to such demands.

But the AFC had a compelling case. It was willing to make a concession on its longstanding position that it would never join with either the PPPC or the PNCR. And make no mistake about it, APNU is the PNCR.

The AFC was willing to compromise on this principle of not aligning with any of the two big parties. It was willing to make this compromise as a tactical manoeuvre, so that it could vote the PPP out of office. In other words, it was willing to trade a core principle of its party in exchange for the opportunity to kick the PPP out of office.

The AFC’s proposal to enter into a pre-election coalition was driven by the desire to see the back of the PPPC. It was never about anything other than gaining political power. The proposal was not about the principle of creating a new political culture. It was a quest for power.

From this perspective of gaining power, the proposal had logic and merit. The Constitution of Guyana provides that the party with the most votes, even if it is one vote, wins the presidency. The AFC felt that in order for the PPP to be defeated, inroads had to be made into the PPPC support base. It felt only with an AFC-led coalition it would be able to make such inroads.

In 2006 and 2011 there were suggestions that the AFC should join with other opposition parties. The AFC did not go this route, because it felt that such a race would favour the PPP which would use its propaganda machinery to feed on ethnic insecurity amongst the PPP’s supporters. Thus the AFC was not interested in coalitions. This was also in keeping with the core principle that the party was a third force and would not join with either the PPP or the PNCR.

The AFC did very well in both of these elections. But after its annual conference in 2014, it indicated that it was open to a coalition with APNU, but only if it led that coalition. The thinking here was that such a coalition would only be able to win if it made inroads into the PPP’s support base.

And the only way it could make these inroads was if the coalition was led by the AFC, since an AFC-led coalition would help to reduce ethnic insecurity amongst the PPP supporters, who would feel more comfortable under an AFC-led government than an APNU-led one. This was the logic and the merit of an AFC-led coalition.

The supporters of the AFC thus understood clearly that its party was entering into talks with APNU on the basis of a non-negotiable position: that the AFC would hold the presidency. It therefore must have come as a terrible shock to learn that the AFC ceded this position and has now entered into a coalition without the presidency, and thus without the vital ingredient needed to make inroads into the PPP’s support base.

No one expected APNU to give up the leadership of the coalition. No one expected APNU to be in favour of Moses Nagamootoo as a presidential candidate for an opposition coalition. APNU opposed Nagamootoo for the position of Speaker of the National Assembly. It said he was too steeped in the PPP for the coalition’s comfort. So why then would it have accepted him as a presidential candidate for a new coalition? No one therefore expected that APNU would cede the leadership of the coalition to Nagamootoo.

But far more unexpected was the decision by the AFC to go against its non-negotiable stance that it would only enter into an alliance with APNU if it got the presidency. The AFC has betrayed its supporters by doing so.

The AFC forgot the logic it applied in the run-up to the 2006 and 2011 elections. That logic was that the value of any election coalition was NOT equal to the sum of its parts.

If you add APNU’s support and you add AFC’s support, it will NOT be equal to the total support that the coalition will garner. A large number of AFC supporters will not vote for any coalition involving APNU. Neither will those disgruntled PPP supporters which the AFC was hoping to attract.