PPP’s leadership creating political hysteria to mobilise their support base DEAR EDITOR, I have followed the polemics resulting from statements made by Finance Minister, Winston Jordan and Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo at a government outreach in Bartica a few weeks ago. The apparent offending remarks, “ war break”, “no registration, no elections” and “trouble” if there is no House to House registration or be ready for protest, are not offensive in the context of the Guyanese political culture. This is contrary to the position that is being made out by the opposition PPP and their supporters. The decision of the opposition to take these matters to the Guyana Police Force (GPF) and the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) is politicking – playing to its support base. It is also an abuse of these national institutions. By complaining
to these institutions, the political opposition is attempting to entrap them to assume partisan political positions. In the run-up to the 2011 General and Regional Elections speaking at ACDA’s public meeting in Beterverwagting (BV), I stated what should be the African Community’s position on shared governance after the elections. At that meeting, I said that we went to BV to read “the riot act”. This statement was seized on by the PPP and their propaganda letter writers to claim that I was calling on Africans to engage in riotous actions. One doesn’t have to be a scholar on Guyanese social/political-cultural history to appreciate that this usage has a history that is not offensive. In spite of this reality, the PPP elements reported me to the police and the ERC after creating much
hysteria over nothing. Here again, we are seeing the similar tactics being employed by the PPP and their propaganda agents in relation to the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance’s speeches in Bartica. My prediction is that nothing would come out of these reports to the ERC and the police, since the opposition has nothing of substance to stand on. I am sure that the PPP’s leadership is well aware of this outcome, but they are more concerned with creating political hysteria to mobilise their support base. But the national political consciousness makes this type of tactics ineffective and counterproductive. The PPP’s leadership will continue on this path, guided by its Machiavellian belief that some actions are better than no action in spite of the consequences. Tacuma Ogunseye
Can ANUG or LJP make a difference in elections? DEAR EDITOR, Because I recently conducted an opinion survey on political issues, I received several queries on which party or alliance has the advantage going into any election, and whether A New and United Guyana (ANUG), Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) or other Minor parties can make a difference in the elections. Attention is specifically focused on whether Mr. Ralph Ramkarran would make a difference to the outcome of an election, winning it for his party. The poll shows that Mr. Ramkarran commands a lot of respect among certain sections of the population and no party should dismiss his influence and importance in the coming elections. I was reminded that in polls conducted in 2011, I
PAGE 5
Kaieteur News
Friday July 12, 2019
stated that the PPP would win a majority if Messrs. Ralph Ramkarran, Moses Nagamootoo, Robert Persaud, or Dr. Frank Anthony were to be its Presidential candidate. None of them were chosen as the nominee and the PPP ran short of a majority of seats in parliament. In 2015, I was further reminded that polls I conducted showed that if Mr. Ramkarran were to return to the PPP and become its Presidential nominee, it would win the elections. He did not return to the PPP, and the party was ousted from office in May 2015. Now I am being asked if Ramkarran could lead ANUG or an alliance to victory and whether Messrs. Frank Anthony and Anil Nandlall are assets to the PPP’s election campaign. Bharrat Jagdeo is
indisputably the most popular political figure in Guyana. Were he the PPP/C’s Presidential nominee, the party would easily win an election. But the constitution bars him from seeking a third term, providing serious challenges to the PPP to win an election. Ramkarran is the second most likeable political figure (behind Jagdeo) in the greater Georgetown area (Regions 1, 3, 4, 5). Ramkarran is not so well known in Regions 2 and 6 and is almost unknown in the hinterland regions. President David Granger retains (Continued on page 6)
The Prisoner’s Dilemma and a Call to Extend & Reform DEAR EDITOR, Guyana’s political establishment is faced with a version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a well-known concept in modern game theory. It is a paradox in decision analysis in which two players, each acting in her own self-interest, will fail to produce the optimal outcome. The classic prisoner’s dilemma is as follows: two bank robbers, Bernard and Bisram, have been arrested and are being interrogated in separate rooms. The authorities have no other witnesses and can only prove the case against them if they can convince at least one of them to betray the other and testify to the crime. Bernard and Bisram are faced with the choices: (i) cooperate with each other and remain silent; or (ii) defect and testify for the prosecution. If they both co-operate with each other and remain silent, then the authorities will only be able to convict them on a lesser charge of loitering, which will mean one year in jail each. If Bernard testifies and Bisram does not, Bernard will go free and Bisram will get three years and vice versa. If they both testify against each other, they will each get two years in jail for being partly responsible for the robbery. Observe, the game is configured in such a manner as to induce both parties choose to protect themselves at the expense of the other participant. As a result, both participants find themselves in a worse state than if they
had cooperated with each other in the decision-making process. We believe that the current Guyanese political environment is a game akin to the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma. It is a game, configured by our socioeconomic and political history, that induces either the PPP or the Coalition to choose to protect themselves at the expense of the other and as a result creating a less than optimal solution for Guyana as a whole. Playing this game with unchanged rules will guarantee the same political outcomes unless political players change their behaviour. Elections will be held; a party will be declared the winner; the loser will reject the outcome; (if we are lucky) there will be an elections petition; if there is a majority winner, budgets will be passed after debates; and there may even be another no-confidence vote. Alternatively, with a plurality winner and an elections petition by the loser, we’d have a “minority” government. With unchanged rules, we inevitably return to the CCJ. Add to this mix the infusion of large oil revenues and we will be well on our way to Dickens’ “worst of times, age of foolishness, [and] epoch of incredulity”. With more to spend than we did as the fastest growing economy in the region, fiscal profligacy is likely to follow from the current rules of engagement
that do little to limit borrowing and the size of budget deficits. This statement is aimed as highlighting that fact that, this moment, most fortuitously, provides an opportunity for the major political parties to change the rules of engagement. With the same two-thirds majority that is required to extend the time for government to remain in office and hold elections, the National Assembly can change the Articles listed in (b) of Article 164. To reiterate: The parties can go back to the National Assembly to extend the time for the government to “remain in office and hold elections” and with this same two-thirds majority the National Assembly can effect constitutional reform, i.e., change the Articles listed in (b) of Article 164 . [While we concede that the probability of the major political parties changing their behaviour and putting the national interest ahead of their partisan interests is small, we believe that this very (partisan) behaviour can be a powerful motivation that can be harnessed for the good of the nation if the rules of the game can be changed so as to align partisan interests with the national interest. Were this to happen, the same two political parties that cannot now agree on anything that matters significantly to Guyana, would be able to cooperate and work together for the (Continued on a page 6)