The government cannot dictate how it should be opposed

Oct 25, 2024 Peeping Tom

---

Peeping tom…

Kaieteur News – The irony of the Vice President and his sidekicks is that they mistake the purpose of opposition politics, and in doing so, offer naive and distorted views of the political ecosystem. The government and its cronies take a predictable route: they seek to dismiss the Opposition’s focus on race, corruption, nepotism and favouritism as politically expedient distractions, and instead want to dictate that the Opposition shift towards policy-based criticisms.

It is a pleasant fantasy, one rooted in the naïve hope that opposition parties will kindly focus on policy debates rather than confront the government on contentious issues. But such an expectation betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of democratic politics: the Opposition exists to hold the government accountable, not to serve as a surrogate think-tank for policy formulation.

In fact, the arguments of the government and its sidekicks falter on a basic premise—democracy thrives on checks and balances, not on the idyllic cooperation of governing and opposition parties. The lamentation that the Opposition is focused on what it imagines to be racial discrimination, corruption, and nepotism, seems to suggest that these concerns are not worth addressing or perhaps are even invented. Yet, whether the government sees these concerns of the Opposition as valid is irrelevant; the role of the Opposition is to reflect the perceptions, concerns, and frustrations of its constituents, especially in a political climate where issues like corruption, nepotism, and racial disparities are far from imaginary.

The Opposition’s “playbook” is no accident. It is the very strategy that has kept the government on its toes, whether they like it or not. One wonders how the government might envision the Opposition acting—should they present polished policy papers and engage in calm debates while ignoring the charged atmosphere of racial tension and historical grievances that define much of Guyana’s political landscape? Should they disregard corruption allegations in favour of intellectually engaging the administration’s policy plans?

The government and its mouthpieces seem to overlook the fact that the Opposition is not in office; it is not their job to govern. Their role is to hold the government’s feet to the fire, to scrutinize and criticize its actions, and yes, to exploit every political vulnerability the government presents. In this sense, the persistent demand by Jagdeo and others for a policy-centered Opposition is a request for a defanged, toothless political entity—a compliant actor in a stage-managed democracy.

The government is free to assume that the Opposition is nothing more than a cynical purveyor of racial division. The government is free to dismiss as a contrivance the Opposition’s invoking of race, with corruption as their fallback accusation when race fails. But such a dismissal conveniently overlooks that in a country like Guyana, where race and ethnicity have long been intertwined with politics, such issues cannot be neatly compartmentalized or dismissed.

In fact, one could argue that the very persistence of racial discourse in the political arena reflects deep-seated societal divisions that require genuine engagement rather than denial. One social commentator has long called for ethnic impact assessments – a call that is studiously avoided and ignored by the government.

The government’s frustration with the Opposition’s focus on race and corruption is clear, but the dismissal of these issues as distractions belies a more significant problem—the government’s failure to convincingly address these concerns. The effectiveness of the Opposition’s strategy is not a reflection of media complicity or manipulation but of the government’s perceived shortcomings in these areas. If the government were more transparent, less embroiled in scandal, and better at communicating its policy successes, the Opposition’s accusations might not stick at all and would become a useless adventure. That some persons take the Opposition seriously is a government failing, not the Opposition.

The government’s argument that the Opposition’s discourse is regressive and divisive—rests on a false dichotomy. It implies that there are two paths: a progressive, policy-oriented politics or a backward, race-baiting opposition.

Yet the truth is far more complex. Political opposition in any democracy is often a messy, contentious process, with accusations and counter-accusations flying on all sides. The expectation that the Opposition should simply focus on policy debates while ignoring what it perceives (or knows) as corruption or racial inequality is not only unrealistic, it is undemocratic. The Opposition is entitled, indeed obligated, to highlight what it sees or believes as government failures, however uncomfortable or inconvenient those critiques may be.

The Opposition is not obliged to play by the government’s rules. It does not exist to legitimize the government’s policies or to provide a loyal counterweight. Its role is adversarial by design, and if that opposition happens to focus on race, corruption, or nepotism, it is likely because these are the issues resonating with its support base. The government cannot dictate how it should be opposed; it can only respond by governing more effectively and communicating its policies more convincingly. Until it does, the Opposition will continue to play the game it knows best.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) 

 

 

---

• Administrations, corruption, favouritism, intellectually, nepotism, Race

---