AFC GOING IT ALONE
More than a quarter of the world’s democracies have coalition governments. Guyana had its first two-party coalition government in 1964 when the PNC and the UF coalesced to defeat the PPP. The reason for that arrangement was that neither the PNC nor the UF, by themselves, could have defeated the PPP at the polls in a winner-take-all political system.
The positive aspect of coalition governments is that every party has to compromise and make sacrifices for the common good. The largest party cannot implement its own agenda, and if it does, as in the case of the PNC, it can disappoint and frustrate the voters who could lose faith in the government.
Coalition governments represent a broader spectrum of public opinion than one-party governments.
Coalition governments provide consensus politics in which consultation on issues takes priority over unilateral decision-making. However, this has not been the case with the six-member multiparty coalition government, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU).
In just over a year in office, disagreements between the AFC and APNU began to emerge over power sharing and unfair hiring practices. The problem is, the coalition government is a “coalition of convenience” formed principally to defeat the PPP. Coalitions of convenience do not have any particular ideological framework that could be used as common ground on which its differences can be hammered out.
In a “coalition of commitment,” each party in the coalition will compromise for the common good of the country despite the disequilibrium of size between the parties.
Prior to the May 2015 elections, the diminutive AFC loomed large; its presence in the coalition led to the defeat of the PPP. But once the elections were over, the Cummingsburg Accord began to erode. Most PNC members believe that the 40 percent allocation of seats and positions to the AFC was extravagant.
The truth is the AFC has always been aware that when it joined APNU in February 2015, it would face the existential threat of being controlled by the PNC-led coalition and could lose its identity. It was a gamble it took and lost because it did not manage its affairs well.
It took only three years for the AFC to encounter its worst crisis of its 12-year history as a junior coalition partner. Mesmerized by the trappings of being ministers and handsomely rewarded by a huge reservoir of power, its leaders have neglected their responsibilities to their constituency. They have also failed to put in place mechanisms to keep their larger partner, the PNC, in line, address the insecurities of the people and ensure fairness in hiring and assigning of senior positions.
Caught in the public glare of dissent with its coalition partner on several issues and with APNU’s refusal to agree to a 60-40 percentage allocation of candidates for Local Government Elections (LGE), the AFC has decided to contest the November 12 LGE as a separate party.
In a pathetic statement, the AFC said it is contesting the LGE separately in order to preserve its identity, but it does not, in any way, affect its commitment to the coalition government, nor does it change the AFC position on coalition politics at the national level.
Yet there is the other view. The AFC believes that it has made a difference in the political landscape of the country. And indeed it has. Race politics is not a part of that political party and that has appealed to the young Guyanese.
These young Guyanese are silent so the adults who may have gravitated to the party are the ones preaching the doomsday scenario. The future of the AFC may be more secure than believed.