Dear Editor,
It has been almost five months since the September 1 General and Regional Elections, and to date, I have not seen any of the major advocates for the opposition who urged opposition supporters to “split” the vote give any analysis on the outcome of the elections. Have the outcomes matched their expectations, and if not, how do they see the way forward for opposition supporters and for the nation?
Responsible politics requires that political parties’ leadership and non-party public actors who advocated positions during the election period engage in a public assessment of the outcome of their advocacy. This is necessary if we are to give real meaning to our “democracy” and help uplift the consciousness of the masses, whose political behavior stands between true democracy and dictatorship. It is they who have not merely voting powers but post-election powers, and how these are used can determine the nation’s future one way or the other.
Previously, I had called on the “split the vote” advocates, particularly the politicians, to engage in self-criticism on this important matter. To no avail. Which is not surprising given our political culture. Notwithstanding, I have modified my call from self-criticism to a public analysis, in the hope that they feel more comfortable with this course of action in the interest of the nation.
Over time, the consequences of their politics will become more apparent, with negative repercussions for the nation. Their silence will not lead to the wishing away of the consequences of their politics. But offering the nation some explanation opens the possibility for the people to have renewed trust in them that they can rise above self-serving arrogance and to ill-responsible politics.
There is the view that we should move on, what has happened is past, and that the future is what matters now. The proponents of this view overlook the fact that the future cannot be separated from the past. The past directly influences and shapes the present, and in many ways determines what the future will be.
For example, if the masses believe that the outcome of the elections matched their expectations, they will behave in ways consistent with that belief. On the other hand, those whose expectations were different will act in ways consistent with their own expectations.
Now, let us examine how this logic is unfolding in Guyanese responses to the country’s political, economic, and social situation. Generally, in the PPP constituencies, there is triumphalism. In the opposition’s constituencies, there is a consensus that the elections have been disastrous for the opposition and the country. For them, the election results have not led to the defeat of the PPP and have left the opposition in disarray and unable to mount any serious challenges to the regime.
Given that view of the situation, it is only natural that there is no significant section of the community willing to come out in public protest. We have seen this manifestation when the APNU, to their credit, responded to popular outcry and called a protest for the promised government cash grant, a demand that cut across race and partisan politics. What was the response to the call? It went unanswered, except by APNU activists.
Objectively, we are in a worse position than before the elections, both internally and geopolitically: a more entrenched PPP and a US administration whose foreign policy is driven less by long-standing, internationally agreed core principles of state relations and more by transactional politics, not principled politics.
This environment gives the PPP political comfort and space to pursue its dominant governance policies. In my judgement, only two outcomes would have been in the best interest of opposition supporters and the nation: (1) a defeat of the PPP, or (2) a result that reproduced the previous election arithmetic. There is no need to elaborate on the first-mentioned position above.
If the APNU had been returned to its previous position as the main opposition party with its original seats, it would have been in a better position to pressure the government for constitutional reform to end winner-take-all governance in the country. And in so doing, it could have addressed major issues that adversely affect the African community and the wider opposition base. The current results make this far more difficult, and given the conservative approach of opposition politics, it is unlikely that either APNU or WIN will have the courage and will to pressure the PPP in that direction.
In the run-up to the local government elections, the WPA called for an African and Guyanese rebellion/uprising instead of participation. We failed to convince the PNC/APNU and the wider African leadership to adopt that position. Our community participated in those elections, and the intention of the political leadership we were told is to hold on to political space; in the end, we got a licking.
Our leadership and its propaganda messaging claimed the outcome as a victory since we held on to some important areas despite a significant reduction in the number of administrative areas under our control. The objective of the uprising, in short, was to force the government into making a compromise on all the major outstanding demands of the opposition, including constitutional reform to end winner-take-all governance before national and regional elections.
Participation in the Local Government elections and the losses that the APNU experienced were an indication of what was in store for it in the general elections. Having baptized defeat into victory, the opposition became a victim of its own propaganda.
In closing, I have revisited these issues not as an attack on those who took a different view and advocated for their line of action. Instead, I am making a call for lifting the political culture by mature political discourse to enhance our people’s consciousness. Without that enhanced consciousness, the future going forward for the nation is very uncertain, to say the least.
Yours truly,
Tacuma Ogunseye
