LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

The Leader of the Opposition is a constitutional office. He or she is elected at a meeting of the non-governmental members elected to the National Assembly. The meeting is convened and presided over by the Clerk. After the Leader is elected, the President is informed by the Speaker and the President then appoints the elected person as Leader of the Opposition. The President has no discretion. Prior to 2001, when the discretion was removed, the President would appoint as Leader of the Opposition the person who he or she believes would command the support of non-governmental MPs.

The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to a salary and allowances equivalent or very near to that of a Minister, including an office with equipment, staff, car, driver and security. A salary is provided for by law. The other facilities and benefits are based on long standing agreement between the Government and Opposition. Negotiation for these benefits began since 1975-6 by Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham when the PNC Government was seeking to persuade the PPP to end its boycott of Parliament after the 1973 elections. Two PPP supporters, Bholanauth Parmanand and Jagan Ramessar had been shot while protesting the GDF’s seizure of the ballot boxes at No. 63 Village, Corentyne, Berbice. They bled to death at the back of a GDF military vehicle.

The Leader of the Opposition is required to be consulted by the President in relation to the composition of a number of constitutional commissions and offices. These include the Public Service Commission, the Judicial Service Commission, the Police Service Commission and the Guyana Elections Commission. Among the offices that the Leader of the Opposition is required to be consulted on are the Chancellor, the Chief Justice, the Commissioner of Police and the Chair of the Elections Commission.  In relation to the Chancellor, Chief Justice and Chair of the Elections Commission the Leader of the Opposition is required to give his consent.

Since 1992 Guyana has had four Leaders of the Opposition, namely, Desmond Hoyte, Robert Corbin, David Granger and Aubrey Norton. Desmond Hoyte was stiff but engaged with the PPP/C Government in 2001-2. Robert Corbin had a more relaxed approach and also engaged in negotiations and actually had an agreement with the Government. David Granger was formal and performed his constitutional duties but had no significant negotiations or agreements. Aubrey Norton’s more aggressive and hostile posture towards the Government was expressed by refusing to shake hands with the President., although he discharged his constitutional responsibilities. Whatever approach is adopted by the next Leader of the Opposition, likely to be Mr. Azruddin Mohamed, the Leader of We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), which won 16 seats in the Parliament to APNU’s 12 and FGM’s 1, he would need to understand that the Government can function without him, but he needs to be able to engage with the Government at certain levels in order to demonstrate to his supporters that he can negotiate and ‘win’ benefits on their behalf. He will no doubt take note of the disaster that has befallen the APNU from its confrontational approach and promises of more to come.

Mohamed has three major issues to confront, namely, the negative consequences of the OFAC sanctions, the hostility of the PPP to him and the dramatic change to politics and the political landscape wrought by the elections due most likely to the new oil economy. Our newfound oil wealth, from which many have not yet benefited, appears to have reoriented Opposition supporters in the direction of seeking benefits rather than confrontation. Unfortunately, the benefits are being sought from Mohamed who, despite his wealth, cannot satisfy the needs and desires of all his supporters. He can only obtain the wherewithal from Government programmes. To obtain these, he must negotiate with the Government.

It is not known if the hostility that was displayed to him by PPP/Government leaders will continue. They could potentially reconsider their relations with WIN. The reason for the hostility was obviously because the PPP feared that WIN would attract support from its own supporters and reduce it to a minority government. Now that WIN had not done so, but has brought the PPP’s old nemesis, PNCR/APNU, to its knees, it might feel inclined to give WIN a helping hand to maintain APNU in that position. While the Government would be looking over its shoulder at reaction from the US, it would have grounds to deal with WIN – the Constitution enjoins it to do so. It may consider as a first step an amendment to the Constitution to provide term limits for members of the Elections Commission. Such term limits existed in the past and was mistakenly omitted when the reforms took place in 2001. It would not be lost on the PPP that together with WIN, it has a two-third majority in the Parliament which would allow it to amend the Constitution.

With constitution reform still on the Government’s agenda, WIN is in a commanding position. Whether it will use its position to benefit its supporters and the country or continue the regime of sterile opposition politics that brought down APNU, we shall have to wait and see.