The recent unsavoury breakdown in the coalition negotiations between the PNC and AFC illustrates a fundamental flaw in our Opposition parties and why they may be doomed to remain in the wilderness for the biblical forty years. They focused on divvying the spoils – which are non-existent at this point – rather than crafting a program for the development of the country through coherent policies.
The French and Germans have a single word – “La politique” and “politik”, respectively – that encompasses what we describe separately in English as “politics” and “policies”. But it is clear that the Opposition refuses to acknowledge the distinction offered as they continue to focus on obtaining raw power. Politics, of course, is all about the pursuit and retention of power – deciding ‘who gets what, when and how’. Less glamorously, however, policies imply rolling up one’s sleeves to craft principles or rules to achieve goals that have also been outlined and articulated.
The Opposition could care less about policies. They have, for instance, exhaustingly criticised the government on ‘corruption”. But if we examine their pronouncements, they only attack individuals within the government or those they claim are close to the administration – the infamous “friends and families”, without taking the time to obtain and provide evidence of malfeasance. This is not getting the country anywhere – except to discourage men and women of calibre from entering public service. What are the policies of the Opposition to deal with corruption?
And we are not merely suggesting shouting “hang them high”. We have in mind what Max Weber called “a slow boring of hard boards”: a willingness to look behind a given phenomenon and discern its causes before coming up with the broad principles to deal with it, within an institutionalised framework. Returning to the vexed question of ‘corruption”, are there, for instance, deeper systemic causes operating within the neo-liberal order that was imposed on our economic system since 1989?
Is it just coincidence that the same rules of ‘liberalisation” and ‘deregulation’ that were developed and applied in the ‘advanced’ economies have also led to questions of moral laxity? Are markets the best arbiter of distributive justice, much less moral probity? Unless the Opposition are prepared to pose and then answer such questions that can lead to new and comprehensive policies, they are just spinning wheels. Or maybe worse: they are leading their supporters into believing there will be real change after their theatrics. When the latter discovers that it is the ‘same ole, same ole’ then frustration might lead to anger and explosions.
After the 2011 elections delivered the unprecedented situation of a government without a majority in the National Assembly – with the Opposition thus having control over legislation – the former were unable to execute their policies for the country’s development due to the brakes being applied by the Opposition. The Amaila Falls Hydro Electric Power project, which had to be abandoned after all the pieces were in place – because of increased “political risks” occasioned by the Opposition insisting they would not honour the contract – well illustrates the point.
The APNU/AFC coalition government between 2015 and 2020 did not suggest any major, fundamentally new policy initiatives but rather reinforced their penchant for “pelf and power”. After criticising the previous PPP’s “fat cat” salaries, they raised Cabinet Ministers salaries by an astounding 50% while increasing Public Servants’ salaries by a mere 5%. Their “tax and spend” profligacy was illustrated by the fact that they introduced 350 new taxes such as Value Added Tax (VAT) added on water, education, healthcare, data, electricity, and internal travel.
As highlighted by a 2018 FITUG report, “…more than $12 billion of the $17 billion in new tax revenues [by the coalition Govt. went] to shore up the government bureaucracy instead of better aligning public investments with social and economic needs.” For instance, investments in infrastructure and agriculture fell by 7% and 8% respectively.
In contrast, since their return in 2020, the PPP has focused strategically on infrastructural development to facilitate the industrialisation of Guyana to create lasting progress.
