Latest update April 17th, 2024 12:59 AM
Mar 17, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
The APNU/AFC bandwagon has set off. The new coalition had its first rally last Saturday to an expected large crown in Linden.
Not much in terms of policy was discussed. Ousting the PPPC from office seems to be the galvanizing theme of the coalition.
For the time being, important policy pronouncements have been put on the backburner in favor of responding to the PPPC’s verbal attacks on the coalition.
In so doing, however, important issues to the survival of the coalition have not yet been settled, or if they are, no announcement to this effect has been made
One of those outstanding issues is the appointment of the Leader of the List. There is an agreement in principle between APNU and the AFC that this person will be a member of civil society, quite a paradox since by definition once you go on a party’s list you can hardly be classified as civil society.
One supposes that APNU and the AFC will eventually have to settle for a mutually agreed upon person who is neither a member or associated with either of them. This is a most important appointment to be made in keeping with the spirit of the Cummingsburg Accord.
It should have been settled a long time ago. It is a safeguard mechanism to prevent APNU from breaching any agreement or understanding that it would have reached with the AFC.
The Leader of the List has the power of recall. The AFC has explained that if APNU goes against its understanding with the party, the AFC reserves the right to use its assured twelve seats in the coalition to move a motion of no-confidence against APNU.
The AFC however knows that APNU can neutralize that recourse by having the Leader of the List recall the AFC’s parliamentarians, thereby rendering them vote-less. In order to prevent this betrayal, the agreement between APNU and the AFC reportedly provides for someone from civil society to hold this position.
One would have expected that before the public swooning by AFC leaders of APNU that this important issue would have been settled. It is the most critical safeguard mechanism and the fact that the AFC has allowed itself to go on the campaign trail with APNU without this person being in place is a risk that the AFC is taking and one that can backfire against the party.
The second important issue that should be settled is the joint programme. This too should have been settled before the Linden rally. It has not.
The joint programme is one way in which both sides can have an agreement as to what will happen if they gain office and indeed there should also be a joint programme for if they do not gain office. Such programmes are important to void conflicts that could threaten the life of the coalition or force it to implode. Once there is a common programme, then both parties would be subjecting themselves to a fixed menu of policies, objectives and goals and this will reduce disputes between the two sides. This in turn will help keep the coalition united and intact.
We have been told that a manifesto is being worked on. A Manifesto is however not a joint programme. A joint programme is form of contract between the two parties in which they commit to doing certain things and in which they outline in a legally bound agreement what will be done by whom and by when. A manifesto on the other hand is list of promises. It is not an agreement and therefore it should be not be confused with a joint programme which would allow both the AFC and APNU to be contractually bound to implement certain policies and to achieve certain projects and goals.
A manifesto can be ignored. It can be changed. Reasons can be found to explain why certain promises cannot be kept or needs to be pushed back. An agreement on the other hand cannot be so easily discarded.
Because the AFC has reneged on its earlier declared position of demanding the presidency in any coalition, it should have paid greater attention to ensuring that instead of a manifesto what was produced was a joint programme because this programme can be the basis of creating comfort for those PPP supporters which the AFC wants to target in the May 11 polls.
Finally, there is a need for the parties to reconcile a number of positions on which they have been at odds. One of this is on the Amaila Hydroelectric Project. The second is on the Cricket Administration BIll which APNU supported but which the AFC had opposed. There is the appointment of the acting Chief Justice and Chancellor of which the AFC supports while APNU wants there to be applications for the jobs. Then there is the issue of what will come of the Marriot Hotel. APNU has solid environmentalists within its ranks. What is the coalition going to do about logging and mining by private multinationals? Will they be asked to pack up and leave? These and other issues on which the parties do not see eye- to- eye needed to have been resolved long before the Linden rally.
JAGDEO ADDING MORE DANGER TO GUYANA AND THE REGION
Apr 17, 2024
2024 CWI Regional 4-Day Championships Round 7…GHE vs. CCC Kaieteur Sports – After a highly-successful round 6, Guyana Harpy Eagles will look to take full advantage of the out-of-sorts...Kaieteur News – Every school teacher should take a close look at the students in his or her classroom. The probability... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]