Latest update March 19th, 2024 12:32 AM
Aug 03, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
Coalitions do present problems in complying with the principle of collective co-responsibility. This is all the more so when you have as many as six parties as part of a governing coalition and when the government rather than the leadership of the parties is making policy decisions.
One of the big drawbacks of the new coalition government is that there was no meeting of the parties after the elections to decide on the composition of the government and the direction it would take.
This failure immediately became a sore point with persons from within the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) complaining about the lack of consultation over the appointment of Cabinet and the creation and naming of ministries.
The WPA is not content with collective co- responsibility. Even though it is supposed to be part of the government, the party has opted to take positions and to publicly express those positions which are odds with the policy of the government. The first was in relation to the Rodney Commission of Inquiry.
The WPA expressed regret that the Commission was not being given adequate time to conclude its work. The second was in relation to the statement issued by Caricom on the Guyana- Venezuela quarrel. The WPA expressed disappointment at the watered-down statement issued by CARICOM.
The WPA has taken a position therefore that while it may be represented in the government as part of the coalition, it retains its right to maintain its own independent position on matters of public interest.
One had expected that it would have the Alliance for Change (AFC) which would have been more assertive in this regard. During the election campaign, the AFC had said that it intended to retain its individuality.
In fact it did exercise some independence during the campaign. However it seems that since the elections it has not shown the same tendency to retain its own independence on certain matters.
This is understandable because unlike the WPA, the AFC is not a minor player in the coalition. It is forty per cent player and therefore any dissension with the government will impact on the unity of the government.
But the fact that it has a forty per cent representation in the government means that it should have been able to exercise greater influence over the decisions of the government.
The AFC should have negotiated a position whereby unless there was agreement with the party, no policy would be pursued.
There are many supporters of the AFC who are questioning whether the party was in agreement with the naming of the ministries.
They also want to know whether the AFC was consulted on the size of the Cabinet. They are asking questions as to whether the Prime Minister, in accordance with the Cummingsburg Accord, is actually in control of domestic affairs.
The most recent controversy concerns the naming of State Boards.
During the election campaign the coalition did promise to involve civil society representatives into the decision making process. To what extent did this manifest itself in the recent appointments of Boards?
These recent appointments have been assailed. There has been criticisms that women are grossly unrepresented on these Boards. There have been accusations of ethnic imbalance on these Boards. There have been criticisms of conflict of interests?
There have been accusations that more young people should have been selected. There has been a suggestion that in some instances the government decided who from the representative organizations should be on Boards rather than leaving this to the organizations themselves.
There have been strong condemnations of the fact that Ministers are now heading Boards over which they have oversight. There remains the concern that instead of change what we are having is exchange.
The AFC is the midst of all these criticisms has not said anything. It is almost as if it is being muzzled by virtue of the fact that it is part of the government.
The supporters of the AFC want to hear whether the leaders of the party agree with the appointments on those Boards. They want to know whether the AFC was consulted or whether what was handed to the party was a fait accompli.
Will the AFC do like the WPA and take an independent line? At the least it should give its supporters some assurance that it is not being sidelined by APNU.
Listen to the man that is throwing Guyanese bright future away
Mar 19, 2024
– Ethan Lee and Sasha Shariff take the lead in their respective categories Kaieteur Sports – After four rounds in the Guyana Chess Federation’s Third Grand Prix Chess Tournament...Kaieteur News – The government has embarked on an ambitious infrastructure development spree. It has initiated major... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – In 2024, a series of general elections in Latin American countries, including... 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]