There are widespread talks ongoing about coalitions. In modern Guyanese political history, while, after the 1947 elections, there was a loose coalition of parties in the Legislature under the “Labour Party” banner, the coalition that defined the mechanism locally was that made by the PNC and the UF in December 1964, which removed the PPP from office. The latter two parties were strange bedfellows driven by one consideration – to oust the PPP. Whether they were encouraged or facilitated to coalesce by the US is irrelevant; their arrangement of expediency demonstrates the pitfalls of what has been labelled the “coalition of convenience”. Some are once again touting this model.
Coalitions of this type, formed in the post-electoral period, are very unstable, and few survive for several reasons. Firstly, their focus is totally electoral: adding up seats while ignoring the cleavages and forces that made them form separate parties and run on separate platforms in the first place. These differences inevitably surface later, when policies and programmes are formulated and implemented. Secondly, there is the disproportion of size: the larger party sees itself as the senior member to which the smaller should defer, while the latter considers itself as an equal due to its strategic position in “tipping the balance”. Thirdly, since the capture of power was their prime motivator, they constantly manoeuvre to monopolise the same, using bribery, defections, etc.
Coalitions of convenience are to be avoided, since the cynicism that attends their birth ensures them an early acrimonious death. The coalition between the PNC and the UF broke down within two years of its formation, as Mr. Burnham enticed members of the UF (as well as the PPP) to cross the floor to create a moot situation when, by 1967, with the PNC showing clearly that it was going to rig the next elections and rid itself of its erstwhile partner, Peter D’Aguiar, the UF leader, left the coalition but could not bring down the government. In the present constellation of parties, we saw APNU and AFC experiencing the same pressures and fissiparous tendencies.
The permutations and combinations of possible coalitions are almost infinite, but, in general, they form a continuum if grouped according to: (a) how, why, and when they were formed, (b) whether or not they were intended to be permanent, and (c) whether the component parties remain separate or combined in structure. Coalitions are, first and foremost, coalitions of various interests represented by the member parties. At one end of the spectrum is the “coalition of convenience” described above, at the other end is the “alliance”, and somewhere in between is the “coalition of commitment”.
But a major problem in Guyana has been the refusal by political parties to publicly accept that one of the interests that are sought to be protected is ethnic interest.
The “alliance” form of the coalition is formed before elections, and seeks to address one or more major cleavages by the fusion of two or more parties to the alliance. Typically, the aim is to be permanent and in tune with this aspiration, field a common slate, and promote a common programme under a common leadership. After the rigged elections of 1985, and up to 1991, the PPP and five of the six parties that had participated in the elections formed the “Patriotic Coalition for Democracy” (PCD) and worked towards the formation of an alliance. It failed because they could not agree on a leader and a common slate.
The PPP then reached out to certain individuals outside its party structure, notably to Mr Sam Hinds, the African- Guyanese Chairman of a new civic organization – GUARD – that had taken a strong, public position for “free and fair” elections at massive rallies across the country. It labelled them a “Civic” component and decided to go into an electoral “alliance” with them, claiming that they would provide the “balance” to counter any criticism of the PPP not being representative of the Guyanese people – that is, that they were addressing the African Security Dilemma.
They have been successful with this model. The Alliance for Change is technically not an “alliance”.
