A political coalition, usually formed after an election, is an alliance of two or more parties, either with the predetermined aim of forming a government, or on some occasions realising a specific goal. And such political coalition alluded to, may be necessary on those occasions, when none of the contesting parties reach the threshold for an absolute majority, constitutionally mandated to form a government. In fact, informed by international evidence, political coalitions arguably a negotiated consensus, are much more common in parliamentary systems not dissimilar to ours, if there is a hung parliament.
That said, in such cases of a hung parliament, necessitating a political coalition, the ensuing negotiations, challenging by their very nature, would be certainly less arduous, should the parties have concurrence in ideology. And assuming such a circumstance, where possible coalition partners enjoy some level of ideological concurrence, negotiations on government formation, vis-à-vis power sharing, policy pursuance, cabinet positions et al, are made less tumultuous. However, even as the coalition partners progress in good faith negotiations, most imperative it is, all parties are wary of the perils of excessive and unreasonable demands, which could disastrously derail the process.
Having said that, coalition governments, albeit challenging, could nevertheless be of benefit, offering potential opportunities to promote underrepresented groups, whilst advancing stability in cases of a divided post-election landscape. However, the downside well recognised, is epitomised by its intrinsic fragility, such that partner disagreements which aren’t uncommon, representing perennial recipe for political instability, or in worst case scenario, collapse of the government. Moreover, even with an already complicated intrinsic fragility, coalition governments restricted, if not burdened, by multi-party decision processes, can be consequentially slower and cumbersome in their decision making.
Thus, it’s in this context, having deconstructed the nuances of coalition politics, that a retrospective examination of the catastrophic pre-election negotiations is undertaken. However, even before these negotiations are forensically dissected, germane it’s to illuminate, that our constitution stands anomalous, in mandating all political coalitions must be established pre-election.
And with negotiations restricted to the pre-election period, rather than the universally practiced post-election, means the aforesaid negotiations are informed by historical electoral performances, in conjunction with unverifiable internal polls. Therefore, faced with such an anomalous political construct, of a constitution prescriptive of only pre-election coalition, the argument could be made with justification, that such an undertaking wouldn’t reflect the will of the people.
In fact, it was under this burdened political landscape of experiential paranoia, driven by mistrust from a troubled coalition past, that Aubrey Norton’s PNC and Nigel Hughes’ AFC, explored opportunities for pre-election coalition, described as good faith negotiations. But even before these negotiations are positioned under the political microscope, suffice to remind, PNC historically and electorally, represent the major of the two parties.
However, despite this undisputed reality, Hughes’ AFC, never to have accrued 10% of the aggregate votes, nonetheless took the inexplicable negotiating posture, in demanding 65% of the Parliamentary seats. Then, with political egos clearly overdosed on steroids, the aristocratic and out of touch middle-class political entity, pompously advised the major party PNC, that Prime Ministerial candidate selection would remain an AFC commitment, even as the Presidential candidate decision would be informed by their nebulous scientific poll.
Therefore, with such nakedly outrageous demands, it was hardly surprising the party of Charandass, saw negotiations crumbling faster than that of Bharrat’s and Varshnie’s sham marriage. And with negotiations clearly heading south, the rational thought was, Hughes’ AFC would’ve taken a much-needed quantum of humble pie.
But regrettably that wasn’t the case, as the political newbies, in bourgeoisie negotiating posture, stand alone in misguided belief, that the party of LFS Burnham would be over-elated, having been
