– Ralph Ramkarran
While an alliance of opposition parties to contest General Elections has always been a prime objective, history and political realities suggest that opposition unity would be difficult to achieve.
This is the view held by former Speaker of the National Assembly, Senior Counsel, Ralph Ramkarran, who in his musings this past week drew reference to the pitch made by Alliance For Change (AFC), Leader, Khemraj Ramjattan.
The AFC Leader, in a departure from previous policy, offered the AFC as the leader of a pro-democracy opposition alliance of trade unions, civil society, disaffected Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) members and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) to contest the upcoming General Elections.
According to the former Speaker, the AFC’s political strategy is a high risk one for several reasons.
“Joining APNU in loud threats to the PPP’s leadership will certainly not attract the PPP’s disaffected…They might be disappointed in the PPP but certainly do not want to see a substantial diminishing of its capacity for political protection, even if they embrace the wave of apathy that currently exists.”
Ramkarran in his analysis pointed out too that the Peoples National Congress Reform (PNCR’s) adamant refusal to merely address the fears of the historical anti-PNCR forces, “which dread a return to the banning of foodstuffs and rigged elections, would adversely affect its appeal to PPP supporters.”
Ramkarran added too that the difficult issues of leadership, composition of the list of candidates, distribution of seats after elections and agreements on policy cannot be underestimated
“If there is failure, the risks of recrimination and despondency in opposition ranks could potentially affect the AFC’s performance.”
Ramkarran was adamant that the former leader of the PPP Dr. Cheddi Jagan was a fervent believer in and practitioner of alliance politics and it formed a major pillar of his party’s political strategy since 1950 but was most productive during the years of opposition; including the anti referendum campaign in the second half of the 1970s when civil forces played a major role.”
The former Speaker posits, “Notwithstanding the PPP’s bravado and the scorn it pours on the opposition’s effort, it is aware of the potential effectiveness of an opposition alliance.”
According to Ramkarran, “One would have thought that the political strategy of the opposition would dictate that the PPP ought to publicly make its own overtures to the opposition parties, offering a coalition government whatever the results, in order to counter the opposition’s efforts…But no kind of positive, creative strategy appears to be of interest to the PPP.”
APNU’s leaders welcomed the initiative proposed by the AFC but appeared to be less than enthusiastic,” said Ramkarran, who added that history and political realities suggest that opposition unity would be difficult to achieve.
He drew reference to the failed pre-1992 efforts between the constituent parties of the Patriotic Coalition for Democracy (PCD), the Working Peoples’ Alliance (WPA) being one.
“There have never been any substantial alliances that have made a political difference and have endured,” said Ramkarran.
The first major, informal alliance between classes and individuals in Guyana’s politics was in 1950 under the banner of the PPP. It failed!
The next was the gobbling up of the United Democratic Party (UDP) by the PNC sometime around 1956.
The UDP, led by John Carter, had little support but represented the interests of the African professional and middle class and was considered to be the political arm of the League of Coloured People (LCP) which was a social group representing the same interests.
According to Ramkarran, the late Forbes Burnham was a member of that group before being sought out by Cheddi Jagan for a leadership role in the 1950 PPP.
Ramkarran, in giving historical context to attempts at alliances, pointed out that difficulties were experienced in 1964 when PNC Leader Forbes Burnham promised the electorate that there would be no post-election coalition with Peter D’Aguiar’s United Force (UF).
“As soon as the elections were over, a coalition government was formed between the PNC and the UF, which lasted only until 1968 when the first elections were rigged to give the PNC an overall majority.”
Ramkarran is of the view that Burnham had been fearful that if he had announced the possibility of a coalition prior to the elections of that year, the PNC would have suffered negative consequences from the anger of its supporters.
“Proposed association in a post-election alliance with a right wing political party whose political base was in the Portuguese and Indian business communities would not have been seen as empathetic with the aspirations of the PNC’s African working class base,” according to Ramkarran.
He pointed out too that in Guyana’s history, the next phase of alliance politics was practiced by the PPP during the years of 1964 to 1992.
The PPP worked with several political and civil society groups and it joined in the formation of the VLD (Vanguard for Liberation and Democracy) in the 1970s which eventually gave way to the PCD (Patriotic Coalition for Democracy) in the 1980s.
According to Ramkarran, 1992 offered the greatest opportunity from the already established PCD but no pre or post-election coalition emerged.
He observed that the last experience has been the creation of APNU but opined that “this is more of an absorption rather than a coalition.”
He said that apart from the WPA, which is no longer an electoral force, the other parties comprising APNU are one-person parties.
Sep 21, 2018Eagles edged Vikings Basketball Club 76-74 to return to winning ways on Wednesday night during Second Division play of the Georgetown Amateur Basketball Association (GABA)/Rainforest Waters/Malta...
Thirty years ago, as a columnist replying to Harry Hergash, who ran away from his country almost fifty years ago, I would... more
Editor’s Note, If your sent letter was not published and you felt its contents were valid and devoid of libel or personal attacks, 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]