THE ELECTION RESULTS POSES MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS

In normal circumstances, the shape of political discourse in the coming period would be dictated by the results of the elections. The results have been shocking. APNU has been decimated. Its presence in the National Assembly, in alliance with the AFC, has been reduced from 31 to 12. Aubrey Norton, while remaining leader of the PNCR, is to be replaced in parliament by Terrence Campbell, a prominent businessman with no political experience. The new opposition party, WIN, by winning 16 seats, will elevate its leader, the challenged Azruddin Mohamed, to Leader of the Opposition. He also is a prominent businessman with no political experience. What was the message of the electorate? At its basic level, more than half of APNU supporters are expressing dissatisfaction with it but not support for the PPP. It is quite possible that they are looking for benefits, either directly from WIN, or from the PPP/C government under pressure from WIN in the expectation that whatever the form of pressure that WIN might exert, it would be more effective than that exerted by APNU.

The major question to consider is whether APNU will interpret the results as a call to change course. Since 1992, and as far back as 1957, the PNC/PNCR/APNU has seen the PPP and PPP/C as its enemy, and I mean enemy, not political opponent. Conversely, during the earlier period the PPP has seen the PNC as its enemy but with a difference. The PPP has sought alliances at various times with the PNC. For much of its history it has seen such an alliance as the preferred option for Guyana. The PNC has no such history with the PPP except that it proposed talks for a unity government in 1985 and under great pressure from socialist countries in seeking aid for a collapsed economy. Has the time come for both parties to reassess their long-term strategies and relationship having regard to the election results?

Much, I suppose, depends on the lessons that the leadership of APNU would choose to adopt from the results. The main outcome to note, as mentioned above, is that the bulk of its support did not go to the PPP but has migrated to a fellow opposition party, which was also highly critical of the PPP and its government in the three months of its existence before the elections. APNU’s policies have largely been implacable hostility to the PPP, accusations of marginalization and discrimination and of corruption. Could it be that the APNU supporters who voted for WIN feel that its strategy has been unproductive? Have the visible benefits of the oil economy altered the perspectives of APNU’s supporters? Are they now more interested in seeking out benefits from the oil economy and feel that an approach different to that of APNU is necessary? And if so, what is that approach?

At one level politics of government and opposition in a Westminster system in Guyana are quite normal. At another level, we do not practice normal politics. It is complicated by the existence of two large ethnic blocs which, with their electoral allies, have returned one bloc for most of the past since 1992 and are set to return only that same blocs in the foreseeable future. This situation, rooted in ethnic and political competition with deep historical roots, adds complexity to our politics. This situation has bred accusations of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Were these unproductive excesses in opposition, which create resentment across the ethnic divide, responsible for the migration of APNU supporters to WIN?

Aubrey Norton’s self-exclusion from the National Assembly and the rise in influence of Terrence Campbell would definitely add new dimensions to the thinking of APNU’s leadership. The face of APNU would therefore be different. It will take time to determine whether, along with the change in parliamentary leadership, and with Norton’s reduced influence, we would see, not an end of aggressive political combat, but less emphasis on aggression, confrontation and hostility. However, the influence of new MPs like David Hinds would be important. But even Hinds, a professor of political science in the US, will find it difficult to deny that a review of APNU’s policy trajectory is necessary. Hinds could hardly refuse to concede that by half of APNU’s supporters transferring their support to a party led by an Indian is a factor that impacts on ethnic considerations and calculations.

What about WIN? No one can predict the political course it will adopt. It will realise that in our history, third parties have not fared well. Collaboration with APNU will clearly be unpopular because its supporters are dissatisfied APNU supporters. Any collaboration with the PPP will cause consternation among its supporters.  Charting a course between Scylla and Charybdis might be an impossible task and it could eventually become ‘dead meat.’

With its resounding victory, due partly to a moderate increase in African support, the PPP cannot escape consideration of the new political situation that has arisen. Regardless of its declared preference to work with the known quantity, APNU, rather than the unknown quantity, WIN, it will have no option but to deal with the new Leader of the Opposition, Azruddin Mohamed. In doing so, will the PPP see and embrace a further weakening of its historical ‘enemy, PNC/PNCR? After all, with a weakened APNU, and our history of the inevitable decline of third parties, the PPP may benefit. The PPP may also consider that WIN, led by a prominent Indian businessman, might begin to attract the Indian disadvantaged and even some among the Indian middle class. Straightforward answers are impossible with so many imponderables.