|
By Raphael Trotman
Saturday, November 19th 2005
Since the launch of the AFC in October, there has been a heavy and sustained attack on the movement from all angles and for all sorts of reasons. However, these attacks have not been able to penetrate the wall of support for the AFC that has emerged since its launching.
There is widespread speculation as to the possible relationships, if any, with other political parties, and in particular, with the self-styled "Guyana Third Force Platform" (GTF). The relationship between the AFC and the GTF is one of the beachheads which have been opened up by agent provocateurs to ensure that we are divided and therefore easily conquerable. The AFC is on record to have stated that it wanted to launch itself formally as a movement before entering into deliberations with others. This was made pellucid at the now famous Le Meridien gathering and was whole-heartedly accepted by all. To do otherwise would have been to enter into an asymmetrical situation that any student of strategy would have cautioned against. This would not have augured well for the building of alliances or partnerships which the AFC has accepted as essential to achieving a new political dispensation for Guyana.
Since those discussions, there has been much ado about nothing as we parried over websites, personalities and seating arrangements. At the end of the day, the AFC does not view the others with any less respect than it does itself. Some misguided souls have apparently quarrelled about the seating arrangements put in place for the leaders of the GTF umbrella at the launch, and others complained most ridiculously, about the fact that the AFC went ahead to name it's Presidential and Prime Ministerial candidates. It must be considered a personal affront for anyone to try to dictate to the AFC, what it should or should not do regarding its own internal arrangements and structures. The reality is that if one were to ask Joe and Jane Public who are the presidential candidates of GAP, WPA, ROAR, Unity Party, JFAP, the answer would have been unhesitatingly provided.
What we need to do is move away from petty political posturing and earnestly address the core issue that most Guyanese want dealt with: - Will there be a coming together between the AFC and the GTF? Or between the AFC and parts of what now constitutes the GTF? Trust and a basic platform of common principles and understanding are what are needed in any situation in which more than two persons are expected to work together. We need for example to define specifically what it is we are pursuing: - Is it for example an end to instability leading to a new democratic process? Or is it to promote another period of crisis, confusion and chaos? The AFC would not have any part to play in promoting such situations.
The AFC remains ready, willing, and able to meet any group, provided that the necessary preparatory work for the meeting takes place and there is an agreed agenda. The last thing the AFC wishes to see happen, is to disappoint the nation with a failed process resembling the PPP/C and PNCR dialogue, which ended with the infamous "you are not my equal" utterance. To act otherwise would be to stage a "pappy show".
The AFC cannot subscribe to any attempt to avoid the holding of free, fair, fearless, and transparent elections in 2006. There is a widely held belief that there is a plan afoot to subvert the holding of elections next year and to bring things to a point where an interim government will have to be installed. In the view of the AFC, such an outcome would impose further pain and suffering on our beloved Guyana, perhaps even leading to complete socio-economic paralysis.
Promoting a National Front Government could only gain credibility and acceptance if all the important players and stakeholders voluntarily accept this as the best alternative. Forcing, or imposing, such an ad hoc arrangement will not work. Already, the AFC's name has come up as being a member of a high-profiled team that travelled to Washington recently to promote this very point of view. The AFC categorically and publicly disassociates itself from any such points of view and associations.
Then there is the issue of the seats of Parliament, where to date, the only member of the GTF that has taken a position is the WPA because it is the one directly involved in this now interesting and unprecedented matter. It is beyond any shadow of doubt that there is no legal and/or constitutional provision that can see the removal of the so-called "rebel" MP's. What is left is the moral issue being trumpeted by all and sundry; some of whom if we are to call a spade a spade, have serious moral issues of their own.
The notion of democracy has come a far way since the promulgation of the Magna Carta in 1215, and the declaration of our own Independence in 1966. Many have heard of the "Separation of Powers" but few, especially those in office today, really care to endorse and promote its true meaning. The latest indecent assault on democracy is being witnessed with the introduction of the proposed High Court (Amendment) Bill which seeks to denude and degut the hallowed office of Chief Justice by the executive. Yet, there are those who are prepared to argue its uprightness whilst not seeing the argument about three parliamentary seats. Where is the separation if our judges and elected representatives cannot be insulated from executive and party control and manipulation?
In 2003 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Nigeria at which Guyana was amply represented, the "Latimer House Principles" were adopted as being the standard by which democracy shall be measured and judged throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth and amongst its 1.8 billion citizens in the 53 territories. At the time of their adoption, His Excellency, the Right Honourable Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth Secretary General was moved to expressing the sanguine expectation of the Commonwealth's citizens and their political representatives:
"What we now wish to see is the sharing of best practices and dissemination of agreed values and principles. This will enable member countries to move to that optimum state of governance which is predicated on the rule of law in our Commonwealth member states."
Interestingly, at the Nigeria Summit the Heads of State including ours thought it important to address the vexed and important question of the independence of Members of Parliament and included in the declaration the following text:
1. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 is reaffirmed. This article provides:
"That the Freedom of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament."
2. Security of members during their parliamentary term is fundamental to parliamentary independence and therefore:
a) The expulsion of members from parliament as a penalty for leaving their parties (crossing the floor) should be viewed as a possible infringement of members' independence; anti-defection measures may be necessary in some jurisdictions to deal with corrupt practices;
b) Laws allowing for the recall of members during their elected term should be viewed with caution, as a potential threat to the independence of members;
c) The cessation of membership of a political party of itself should not lead to the loss of a member's seat."
The above then sets out the new democratic governance principles that this, and all other governments within the Commonwealth, except of course those under suspension, have endorsed and committed themselves to observing and preserving. The issue of the independence of Members of Parliament is on trial as much here in Guyana, as it is in every other Commonwealth territory.
How this matter ends, or is resolved, will have far-reaching consequences to the democratic edifice everywhere. The "rebels" of Guyana and interestingly enough, those as well in the twin-Island Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, who are fighting the over forty years of established party dominance, are now being viewed with interest, as their fate will become a watershed for the people's representatives the world over, and most importantly, in countries with repressive governments and suffocating political parties.
The people of Guyana have been so poisoned with the bile of party paramountcy and democratic centralism that it is now difficult to separate a Member of Parliament from a political party. The people's best interests as envisioned in the Latimer House Principles are what we in the AFC are being asked to surrender. It is understandable why even the most ardent supporters of the AFC want to see us purified through the act of quitting. In a sense therefore, members of Parliament associated with the AFC are faced with a difficult decision of taking the prophylactic walking pill, or of staying and building up enough anti-bodies to fight the fever itself.
That said, it must be accepted that the AFC's and its supporters' interests must be catered for. In this light, the populace can rest assured that the right decision will be taken at the right time.
The decisions regarding the parliamentary seats will be taken not based on issues of legality or tenuous moral arguments, but on practical political reasoning. At this time, I for reasons more to do with getting the work of the AFC moving in time for the events of 2006 will be making preparations for my departure in the not too distant future. Having committed myself to resign, I will be doing so long before the elections, but it has to be recognized that despite my silence in the House there is unfinished business particularly in preparing the Freedom of Information Bill and it would have been unwise to bend simply to the unreasonable demands of those whom we are likely to encounter on the battlefield in a few short months. Our eventual withdrawal will be on our terms, on our time, and on our own supporters' accord.
I posit that most third party initiatives in Guyana, and elsewhere failed, not because the giants crushed them, but rather because of the crab-in-a-barrel mentality and mischievousness, which did the destruction from within, coming from persons sometimes posing as closest supporters and admirers. I say, let's give working together a try in Guyana's best interest, and stop the promotion of divisiveness. Instead of carrying on a debate on morality and legality, let us engage in a discussion on matters of practicality as Bernard Ramsay and others have suggested on what is in the AFC's best interest.
|
