By Abena Rockcliffe
It is 2025, Guyana is raking in unprecedented revenue; and, while a date is yet to be announced, the nation prepares for General and Regional Elections. Mainstream political parties are adamant that, “for Guyana to grow, PPP must go.” Yet, the PPP seems to be out maneuvering the APNU+AFC opposition almost at every turn.
It was Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport, Charles Ramson, who told the House last week that there are three things upon which all Guyanese agree, our 83,000 square miles territory, our love for cricket, and that the opposition is a “complete waste of time.”
He taunted that the opposition could have made much better use of the last four years, suggesting that they are not even putting up a decent fight.
Ramson said too, “Many of them don’t even attend parliament regularly, they don’t come on time, they don’t make presentations, and when they attend, they leave early, they don’t ask questions.”
Ganesh Mahipaul, who appears to be one of the more proactive members on the other side, stepped in to save face. He sought to remind the Speaker, Manzoor Nadir that Parliament Office still facilitates a hybrid system, allowing for members to attend the sitting in person and online. Mahipaul suggested that when the seats in the House are empty, members are in attendance online.
I kid you not, “nice try” is exactly what the Speaker said as that member stood on a point of order.
Nadir further responded that in order to contradict what Ramson was saying, Mahipaul had to present a record of attendance and use that analysis to contradict Ramson. This was an interesting position, being that Ramson did not in fact present any record to support his statement. The best reason I can offer for the Speaker’s stance is that Ramson’s claim seems to be in line with the reality.
When he was allowed to continue, Ramson spoke about the opposition’s performance out of Parliament. “They don’t even do community work; they will go now (with elections around the corner).”
I have heard avid supporters of opposition parties echo the very opinion about the laid-back attitude. This ranges from people who believe that not enough is being done to ensure the equitable distribution of wealth, to those who subscribe to the narrative about the PPP’s role in the death and disappearance of young black men during the crime wave. Yes, even they believe the opposition is “lazy.”
This writer prefers to steer clear of presenting an overall assessment of the opposition. For now, I prefer to zero in on its first major performance in an election year, budget debates.
The government found fun in saying that all opposition speeches were AI-generated. “Chat-gpt” was hurled at practically all opposition speakers as they presented. While the heavy use of AI was obvious for some presenters, obviously put in some work and provided speeches that did not seem robotic. I remember discussing the presentation of one particular opposition member with a colleague. She admitted that the speech was good, that it highlighted engagement with the people and sufficiently noted perceived errors in PPP policies. But she said, “I was disappointed he stuck to script.”
PPP Members have cultivated a culture of not reading from prepared speeches. They like the look and style of talking off the top of their heads. All of a sudden, sticking to a well-prepared speech makes one seem incompetent. I prefer to see someone read coherent thoughts and ideas than wing a disjointed presentation.
All of that is to say my quarrel is not with opposition members sticking to speeches. I admired the fact that several presenters showed that they adequately prepared and came with their own ideas. The problem however is when those ideas seem to contradict each other; worst yet is when those ideas contradict the stance of your leader.
To be candid, I hadn’t the opportunity to listen to all the parliamentarians, but many of those who I heard, either left severe gaps in the arguments presented, highlighted problems without offering solutions or simply contradicted either the official position of their party or that of a colleague on same side. A glaring example of this occurred when Opposition Leader, Aubrey Norton demanded a reduction in Value Added Tax (VAT) while Geeta Chandan-Edmond called for a complete removal of that tax, both of them are from the PNCR.
The opposition has also been adamant that the PPP is pumping way too much into sugar which they dub a dying industry. During his presentation, Norton said that in government, APNU would right-size the industry. I understand this to be a downscale, in keeping with what actually happened under the previous administration. But when Vinceroy Jordan, the shadow Minister of Agriculture was on the floor, he told the House about intentions to revive the industry. They are both from the PNCR. Those are only two of the contradictions but on key issues.
AFC’s David Patterson did a good job explaining the woes of the energy sector. He spoke about all of the PPP’s failures and acknowledged that demands are growing. Be that as it may, the politician still failed to articulate an alternative energy mix. Patterson also spoke of infrastructure. Like most other opposition Members, he and Norton criticized PPP’s heavy spending on roads and bridges. But then went on to note major projects of their own, that will also cost big bucks. Bridges across the Essequibo River and interstate highways will not be cheap. So that would go back to heavy spending on infrastructure.
Admittedly, Norton made a good attempt on the floor with some of the points made mainly with his appeal for more emphasis to be placed on raising the overall standard of living of the masses. But even some of the social measures he announced came across whimsical especially if all are to be implemented in the first 90 days of Office.
But even more regrettable than his whims, is the fact that Norton apparently failed to make it clear to members, his vision on key matters. This also means that Norton did not consult with his team, not even to get their ideas for rebuttals and other ideas. Yet, he criticized the government about lack of consultation. The making of that point is not meant to suggest that the government is by any means within its right to ignore the opposition.
Sources say that Norton “held no meeting with us on the course to be taken.”
This author understands that one meeting was held at Congress Place to discuss the content of the budget. The presenters were Christopher Ram, Elson Lowe and Rawle Lucas.
One Member of Parliament commented, “I came out of that meeting even more confused than when I went in.” Even with such confused brains, it might have been helpful to at least give members clear positions on key issues to avoid contradictions on the floor. Voters who were tuned into the debates should have had a clear understanding of the way forward under an APNU or APNU+AFC government.
Hopefully, the performance of opposition members is better in the Committee of Supply as compared to what was given on the floor of the National Assembly in the past two weeks.
