WPA conveniently critical of APNU–Patterson

Jan 05, 2019 News

---

By Kiana Wilburg
The Working People’s Alliance (WPA) has on several occasions, expressed its dissatisfaction with the way it is treated by its coalition partners, particularly the People’s National Congress Reform (PNC/R).

But the Alliance For Change (AFC) is of the view that the WPA is rather convenient with its criticisms. Voicing his opinion to the media on Thursday was AFC Executive Member, David Patterson.
The Public Infrastructure Minister said, “…I want to say this, though, when it suits the WPA, they say to us that they are part of the APNU coalition, that they are one of five members… But when it is now (where you have the issue of the No-Confidence Motion), you hear they have no voice…So that is one of the weird things you hear from them…”
In response to this criticism, Executive Member of the WPA, Dr. David Hinds, said that he does not feel Patterson’s statement is justifiable. He stressed that the WPA has not criticized anyone.
The Kaieteur News columnist said, “I have criticized. The WPA should not be penalized for my criticisms of the government. The WPA seldom criticizes the APNU coalition. But in my independent capacity, I have been critical of them and I don’t think I have been convenient.
“I would think that my criticisms have been consistent. And sometimes I have given the coalition praise where it is due. As for my criticisms of the AFC which I think he is alluding to, I respect the Minister’s right to defend his party against criticisms and I do not want to get into any quarrel with the AFC.”
Dr. Hinds added, “I must say, too, that now is not the time for coalition partners to be quarreling with each other. If the parties are going to contest the next elections as a coalition they should be engaged in building bridges and trying to improve inter-party relations.
“I have made my criticisms and those were made as the situation arose but we are now past that. We should be looking towards winning the next elections if we are going to go together as a coalition.”
Dr. Hinds sought to remind that the record shows that the WPA has consistently pointed out that there are no forums outside of Cabinet to voice concerns.
In several interviews with Kaieteur News, Dr. Hinds had addressed criticisms regarding the WPA’s independence or its conviction as an APNU member. As a collective, he insisted that members disagree strongly with some of the government’s actions.
The University Professor had said that although his critiques are done in his own name and not the party’s, most of the time his views on the missteps of the Government are reflective of a majority within the WPA family.
Dr. Hinds had said, “When the government changed, the WPA’s leadership decided to deliberately take a cautious approach towards public criticism of the government. We decided to remain quiet so as not to appear to be undermining the government.”
The political activist noted that that there are four major considerations that informed WPA’s cautiousness when it comes to publicly critiquing the government.
Firstly, the WPA Executive Member said that the Party had taken into consideration that partnership government in Guyana is a new phenomenon that requires each partner to resist against the temptation to impose its views on the partnership.
Secondly, Dr. Hinds said that the Party is committed to making the government work and not to undermining it. In this regard, he said that the Party’s primary concern is not to poison relations with its partners.
The political activist said that given WPA’s history of radical critique of government and politics, most within the party structure are sensitive to the criticisms that “we cannot be trusted to hold things together.”
The University Professor had said that the WPA feels strongly that as a party they should avoid doing anything to give comfort to the PPP and aid its stated objective of undermining and derailing the government.
Dr. Hinds had said, “In a sense, the WPA muted its critical voice in the public sphere in the interest of the collective. In my view we took that cautiousness too far and have become partly imprisoned by it.”
The WPA Executive Member said that it was the party’s hope that it would air its concerns internally, but opportunities to do so were scarce.
He said that the organs of the APNU meet infrequently and so far as the WPA knows, the partners of the Coalition do not meet outside of Cabinet.
“The WPA has one voice and one vote in Cabinet. In other words, our party has very little or no voice in policy making. I am arguing that we got precious little for erring on the side of cautiousness.”
The WPA Executive Member said that there is currently a raging debate inside the WPA family on the party’s silence on government action.
He said, too, that there is a majority view that the party is hurting itself by not asserting its independence both inside and outside of government.
“Many of our comrades feel very strongly that as a party, we have not done a good job at balancing our independence by upholding our traditional values with our commitment to making the Coalition work.”
Dr. Hinds emphasized however that the party’s survival as a credible political influence is premised on striking that balance—the sooner the better.

---

---