In other circumstances, a simple parliamentary manoeuvre would have resolved the PPP’s problem. Inducements offered two members elected on the opposition tickets, and a majority would have been assured. Recall legislation approved during the last government now means that this option is ruled out.

Fidelity to the list is de rigueur. And as it happens, history has now handed to the PPP a wonderful opportunity to start ‘trusting’ habitual opponents and more recent adversaries. The alternative is the administrative equivalent of a paralytic stroke at the first motion of no-confidence that is sure to come. In again other circumstances, a coalition would have been the preferred modality of resolution. A puzzling sort of prescience on the part of the earlier Constitutional Reform group has combined with the party list system to deprive the PPP of this strategy.

Compromise and accommodation are now the only means that guarantee survival.

But this is not necessarily a bad thing for the country. In other words this could end up being the imposition of the obvious – a multi-party arrangement that brings psychological comfort, hope, and ethnic security, to the majority of Guyanese.  This could mean the end or at least the muting of a certain type of racial narrative and the politics it impeded or imposed. This could mark the stamp of declining relevance on a type of anecdotal and mythified history that some politicians campaigned to have engraved in stone.

But what is of even greater importance to the PPP, is the fact that this could mean the chance to honour one of the dreams that Dr Jagan always wished to dream – that of a people united in solidarity against a common enemy, colonial exploitation, imperialist economics, poverty and under-development; whatever becomes the enemy of the historical moment.

The PNC and other members of APNU, as well as the AFC, are themselves living examples of that will to live and work together that is the cry of the times. The PNC will forever be remembered as the first of the major parties that had the courage to enunciate on a platform of national unity. It is telling that Brig Granger reiterates that the principle governing discussions and, we suppose future work with the PPP, is that which propels us to the goal of a truly Guyanese government and style of governance.

To my mind the AFC remains an unknown. Past pronouncements suggest that the party wishes to become the ‘floating vote’ in the House, saying ‘yeah’ to whichever wind blows in a direction it favours.
The problem here is that its intervention will remain restricted to a House that has authority and influence constitutionally circumscribed by the ample powers enjoyed by the presidency and cabinet. In Guyana meaningful change is only achievable when the actors have day-to-day administrative powers and when real influence, exceeding the lightning bolt of simple threats of no-confidence, is exerted over the presidency.

The obvious, therefore, when seriously considered and translated into reality, would consist of a cabinet composed of all of the participants in the post-election arrangement. Proportionately represented of course. And with certain controversial functions (perhaps finance and home affairs) managed by honest and competent technocrats. Past history has distinguished us a people sometimes seized by an ancestral fear or  mistrust or some sort of complex that makes us miss the political chances of the moment. This is the hour when the diversity of our voters and variety of our choices must be represented in the governments we put in place.

Yours faithfully,
Abu Bakr       

Although the recall legislation prevents Members of Parlia-ment from permanently crossing the floor, the onus will be on the opposition in the 10th Parliament to ensure that its members do not vote against their respective parties.

With the opposition parties only having a one-seat advantage over the government, political observers have noted that their Chief Whips would have important roles in the proper functioning of the House. The Chief Whips of parties generally keep their party representatives in line for voting and interface with the Speaker, Clerk and staff on a direct basis on behalf of the parties.

Haslyn Parris, who has researched Guyana’s constitution extensively, opined that the role of the Chief Whip would be pivotal in the upcoming parliament given that this is “the entity that is supposed to get people into the condition of what they should or shouldn’t do or support.” He noted though that it is quite possible for the influence of the Chief Whip to be eroded if a member decides to go against a particular instruction handed down. “The Chief Whip’s influence could be zero or totally pivotal,” Parris said. According to him, the influence that a Chief Whip depends a lot on who the individual is and the conditions under which this person was selected.

APNU Leader David Granger recently told Stabroek News that he does not feel that the expected configuration of the National Assembly will enhance the importance of the Chief Whip but instead place greater emphasis on enhanced policy cooperation by the parties in parliament.  He said that in this regard, the cooperation of his party and the AFC will be extremely important. He said though that he did not see the Chief Whips in the House taking on a diminished role.

“We anticipate a broad system in which all parties in the National Assembly will be able to arrive at prior cooperation and agreement on major issues [beforehand],” he said.

AFC leader Raphael Trotman previously told Stabroek News that he believes that in the next parliament both the APNU and the PPP/C will want to court the AFC. However, he thought it was expected that the AFC and the APNU “will have a firmer and better relationship based on mutual respect and parity. We will give as much respect as we receive.”

Contrary to Granger, Trotman feels that the role of the Chief Whips would be extremely important in this parliament. “In this 10th Parliament, the work of the Whips will be truly pushed to the limit as there is a one seat majority on the opposition side. A missing member due to illness or otherwise can have serious repercussions on either side,” he said. “Many ministers travel and I have no doubt that travel will be trimmed significantly,” he added.

In the last Parliament, the AFC had its own Whip and the party is likely to continue this tradition.  The late Sheila Holder had served the AFC in this capacity.

If a parliamentarian does, however, go against the instruction of a party, he or she could also face possible recall by their respective party.  The controversial recall legislation came into effect National Assembly passed with a two-thirds majority. The law, which had been proposed by the PPP/C administration, amended Article 156 of the constitution to allow for the recall of a member if he or she declares in writing to the Speaker or to his party’s Representative of the List that he/she will not support the list from which the name was drawn. Also, a member can be recalled if he/she declares in writing to the speaker or the representative of the list, or by their conduct or support for another list. Under this legislation, a member can also be recalled when the Representative of the List indicates in writing to the Speaker, that after meaningful consultation with the party or parties that make up the list that the party or parties have lost confidence in the member and the Representa-tive of the List has issued a written notice of recall to that member and forwards a copy of that notice to the Speaker.

The legislation was passed with the support of the PPP/C, the PNCR-1G and GAP/ROAR. The AFC did not support the bill. The proximate cause of the bill was the defection of three MPs—Khemraj Ramjattan, Trotman and the now deceased Holder—in the 8th parliament from the PPP/C, PNCR and GAP-WPA, respectively, to enable the formation of the AFC.
Trotman told Stabroek News that he felt the recall legislation may become a useful tool to the whips. “In the present construct, it is doubtful whether any party will want to push for its repeal as it may become the whips’ best friend,” Trotman remarked.  The AFC, he said, vehemently opposed this particular piece of legislation because it believed that it was crafted “to plug a hole which opened up when we [he, Ramjattan and Holder] left our respective parties in 2005 to form the AFC.”

When questioned about the recall legislation, Granger declined to comment. He indicated though that he was not the leader of APNU’s list, rather it is PNCR Chairman Bishwaishwar ‘Cammie’ Ramsaroop.