It was almost inevitable, the PNC and AFC with contradictory positions in presidential candidates, would have a tragic collapse in coalition negotiations. In fact, this tragic collapse in negotiations, arguably conducted in good faith, was inescapably driven by a prevailing undercurrent of runaway egos. However, even in the absence of runaway egos, the evidence informed by international experience is, coalition politics would forever remain an extremely difficult endeavour. But despite the obvious challenges, coalition politics and the consequential coalition government, would represent the best form of administration in this our diverse and polarised society.
So, even as we painfully reflect on these negotiations’ tragic outcome, cognisant we are, this failure represents a barometer of PNC and AFC unwillingness to compromise, evidenced in their inability to establish political consensus. Which means, being in a state of negotiation paralysis due to a nonexistent political consensus, the outcome was always inevitable, negotiation collapse. In fact, even as the political parties were confronted with an inevitable negotiation collapse, they remain uncompromising in their political interests, bargaining tactics, and unreasonable coalition payoffs.
Moreover, it is for these reasons, PNC and AFC adapting uncompromising political postures, that a widening chasm developed between the political parties’ and public expectations. In fact, this uncompromising political posture was no more evident than with their public tussle, of selecting a presidential candidate. Then, to compound the presidential candidate tussle, painfully evident in the public domain, was the dispute on what constitutes a reasonable coalition payoff, that is post-election ministerial appointments.
However, despite their political differences, it has to be assumed, rightly or wrongly, PNC and AFC having taken the political path of coalition negotiations, were undertaking same in good faith, with the ultimate aim of arriving at a consensus. But inescapable is this fact, for such to eventuate, evidently not an uncomplicated endeavour, would’ve mandated that parties not only negotiate in good faith, but more importantly, shouldn’t burden potential coalition partners with unreasonable demands. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case, as PNC and AFC tragically failed to establish common negotiation ground, even as APNU and WPA engaged in a not so grand coalition.
Thus, it’s in this context; we endeavour to dispassionately examine these failed coalition negotiations, between PNC and AFC. And in examining these failed negotiations, none would argue, of the two political entities, PNC represent the major political party, considering AFC never accrued close to 30% of the aggregate votes. Furthermore, extrapolating this argument, in a recent poll, 62% of respondents supported the view, there is a need for a change in leadership, even as 38% polled for the status quo. Then, in the very poll, among opposition-aligned respondents, 69% intimated they are disinclined to support Aubrey Norton continued leadership of the APNU+AFC coalition, with just 31% being supportive.
And considering the statistics before us, most rationals would be of the conclusion, it was a political overstretch by AFC, demanding a 40/60 ministerial positions, when they have never come close to 30% of the aggregate votes. Moreover, informed by the very data, where 62% of respondents polled for a change in political leadership, the inference is, the electorate isn’t amenable to either Nigel Hughes or Aubrey Norton leading the ticket. In fact, such an inference was further reinforced with data revealing, among opposition-aligned respondents, 69% don’t support Aubrey Norton continuing as leader of the APNU+AFC coalition.
Therefore, informed by this poll, the irrefutable conclusion is, both PNC and AFC in their uncompromising negotiation postures, have demonstrated scant regard to their supporters’ views. In fact, considering the incumbent PPP, has a most sordid track record of corruption, discrimination, victimisation and extrajudicial killings, our expectation was, the negotiators would’ve made a political coalition a matter of national priority. However, that was tragically not the case, as the negotiations driven by self-centred egos, saw the expressed views of the long-suffering supporters disregarded, representing an opportunity lost, at a catastrophic political price.
