Conversation Tree

The general elections held in Kenya in December, 2007, were determined by international observers to be rigged in favour of the incumbent, President Mwai Kibaki. There was a large scale eruption of violence in which over 1,000 persons were killed. Yet the opposition, the Orange Democratic Movement, led by Raila Odinga, now the Prime Minister under a post-elections agreement brokered by Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, had refused to take court proceedings. The opposition alleged that the courts had long been subverted by the governing party which had been in power since 1963. They could, therefore, not be relied upon to give a fair decision even on the massive evidence of rigging which had been exposed.

 

 

Terms limits had been placed on Moi because of popular pressure because he had become too discredited. Kibaki was selected by the same ruling group to replace Moi. He campaigned on a promise an end to corruption. Having become indebted to the ruling elite, Kibaki was unable to move against them. The result was that the gravy train kept chugging along smoothly. 

 

A fascinating spectacle is unfolding in the British politics. One of its  greatest political prizes, the leadership of the Labour Party, is at stake and two brothers are leading the contest. Sons of the late Ralph Milliband, one of Britain’s leading Marxist intellectuals, David and Ed Milliband both served in the Cabinet of the last Labour Government. David was the Foreign Secretary and Ed was the Environmental Secretary. David, the front runner, had been an advisor to Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister and Ed, the younger of the two, emerged into prominence under Gordon Brown.

Even though David does not pretend to have any left credentials, Ed is perceived to be on the centre left. But in Labour Party politics, especially since the Blair era, all Marxist influence was eradicated. Long before, since the time of Harold Wilson, the distinction between centre and centre left was a matter of mere opportunistic nuance, not ideology, even though the Marxist and progressive left was still strong and exercised real influence. In any event, once in office, Labour follows the dictates of market economics, pandering to the City, and succumbs to the ‘charms’ across the Atlantic, be they those of Jack Kennedy, George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush. British foreign policy slavishly follows that of the United States, as with Guyana in the 1960s. And we have seen in the 2000s that in relation to the Iraq War, Britain ditched its allies in Europe and went along with the US.

This President of Guyana, like all past Presidents, including Burnham and Hoyte, has not only a right, but a duty, to visit as much of Guyana as possible. One would have thought that, having regard to the recent history surrounding Buxton, and the regular outreach exercises pioneered and perfected by the President, that all would know that Buxton would be a prime candidate for a Presidential visit.

 

Guyana is not unique in its system of adversarial politics. In fact, Guyana shares with most democratic countries an elected legislature to which competing parties seek membership. The extent of that membership depends on the votes received by political parties in elections. Each political party at these elections seek to persuade the electorate that it is the best equipped to lead the country. Only one party or a group which coalesces before or after the elections, or in the case of presidential elections, one candidate, emerges successful and forms the government. The unsuccessful party

becomes the opposition or minority. During the term of office of the government the opposition criticizes the policies and offers alternatives in preparation for the next elections when it will again try to prove that the government has failed. It may or may not succeed.