APNU HAS ITS PROBLEMS
February 15, 2012 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
The double face that APNU is showing should not be surprising. APNU is facing a series of problems, most of which stem from the fact that it is really a shell organization, a holding company, more or less, for a grouping of political parties.
To compound things, there is an internal dynamic that proves problematic for APNU. Within the grouping there is only one party of significance. All the other groupings are really riding on the back of the PNCR.
As such, APNU draws its strength and a great deal of its credibility from the PNCR. It relies increasingly on the support it has been able to muster from the PNCR. Consequently, while it may be attempting an independent and conciliatory position towards the government, there are forces behind the scene ensuring that APNU understands that the real power lies outside of it.
In the early days after the elections, APNU tried to ensure that the peace was not unduly disturbed. But while it was doing this, there were forces more aligned to the PNCR than to APNU, who were keen on creating electoral suspicion and on testing to see how far the government could have been pushed. After the authorities demonstrated that they were not prepared to tolerate any problems in the streets, the forces behind the protests backed off.
This is why APNU is showing two faces – on the one hand appearing to be willing to use parliament to push its reform within the government, while on the other hand there is a more confrontational face being presented in the public.
The latter face showed itself during the ceremonial opening of the parliament last Friday. While APNU was trying to make the tripartite process work; while they were being respectful to the government, there were forces outside doing just the opposite, trying to ridicule the President of Guyana and sending a message to APNU that they do not expect the PPP to be treated with the sort of respect and decency that has been shown.
The protests outside of the National Assembly were not violent, but they were significant, in that they went against the grain of the image that APNU has been trying to present.
APNU knows that there is a real danger of it losing credibility because of this. It knows that the PPP/C is going to question why despite them sitting down and talking, there are protestors claiming to be APNU who are being confrontational.
There is also a danger of taking this approach too far. The funeral of the late Desmond Hoyte was a case in point. In what should have been a sombre and respectful event, there were a group of PNCR supporters outside of parliament where the main service was held, and these supporters did not behave in keeping with the occasion.
They heckled and made fun of the then president and engaged at times in the most unbecoming of conduct, at least for a funeral. By the time, it was time to bury the former President, the situation got totally out of hand.
While APNU may therefore not have any control over these protestors, it should have least indicated its displeasure at some of their actions, because what is happening is that mixed signals are being received by the public.
APNU has to also develop its own positions, even if this contradicts with what the PNCR wants. The PNCR holds the upper hand and therefore APNU is hogtied to those positions.
Part of the problem is that the leader of APNU is not the leader of the PNCR. And therefore APNU itself has to sit down and clear its positions with its main partner.
Then there is the situation whereby having lost the elections, APNU has to groom new leadership if it is to contest elections within the next five years. The presidential candidate and the prime ministerial candidate of APNU are both going to be seen as aging leaders by the time the next elections comes by. On the other hand, a snap election plays into the PPP’s hands.
So there are real problems within APNU and that body has to address both its future leadership as well as its ability to be independent of the PNCR.
February 15, 2012 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
The double face that APNU is showing should not be surprising. APNU is facing a series of problems, most of which stem from the fact that it is really a shell organization, a holding company, more or less, for a grouping of political parties.
To compound things, there is an internal dynamic that proves problematic for APNU. Within the grouping there is only one party of significance. All the other groupings are really riding on the back of the PNCR.
As such, APNU draws its strength and a great deal of its credibility from the PNCR. It relies increasingly on the support it has been able to muster from the PNCR. Consequently, while it may be attempting an independent and conciliatory position towards the government, there are forces behind the scene ensuring that APNU understands that the real power lies outside of it.
In the early days after the elections, APNU tried to ensure that the peace was not unduly disturbed. But while it was doing this, there were forces more aligned to the PNCR than to APNU, who were keen on creating electoral suspicion and on testing to see how far the government could have been pushed. After the authorities demonstrated that they were not prepared to tolerate any problems in the streets, the forces behind the protests backed off.
This is why APNU is showing two faces – on the one hand appearing to be willing to use parliament to push its reform within the government, while on the other hand there is a more confrontational face being presented in the public.
The latter face showed itself during the ceremonial opening of the parliament last Friday. While APNU was trying to make the tripartite process work; while they were being respectful to the government, there were forces outside doing just the opposite, trying to ridicule the President of Guyana and sending a message to APNU that they do not expect the PPP to be treated with the sort of respect and decency that has been shown.
The protests outside of the National Assembly were not violent, but they were significant, in that they went against the grain of the image that APNU has been trying to present.
APNU knows that there is a real danger of it losing credibility because of this. It knows that the PPP/C is going to question why despite them sitting down and talking, there are protestors claiming to be APNU who are being confrontational.
There is also a danger of taking this approach too far. The funeral of the late Desmond Hoyte was a case in point. In what should have been a sombre and respectful event, there were a group of PNCR supporters outside of parliament where the main service was held, and these supporters did not behave in keeping with the occasion.
They heckled and made fun of the then president and engaged at times in the most unbecoming of conduct, at least for a funeral. By the time, it was time to bury the former President, the situation got totally out of hand.
While APNU may therefore not have any control over these protestors, it should have least indicated its displeasure at some of their actions, because what is happening is that mixed signals are being received by the public.
APNU has to also develop its own positions, even if this contradicts with what the PNCR wants. The PNCR holds the upper hand and therefore APNU is hogtied to those positions.
Part of the problem is that the leader of APNU is not the leader of the PNCR. And therefore APNU itself has to sit down and clear its positions with its main partner.
Then there is the situation whereby having lost the elections, APNU has to groom new leadership if it is to contest elections within the next five years. The presidential candidate and the prime ministerial candidate of APNU are both going to be seen as aging leaders by the time the next elections comes by. On the other hand, a snap election plays into the PPP’s hands.
So there are real problems within APNU and that body has to address both its future leadership as well as its ability to be independent of the PNCR.