Will ideology play any role in the next election?
I have little doubt about the veracity of pollster, Vishnu Bisram's NACTA July-August sample polling that shows, if the elections were held today, the PPP would cart off 45% of the votes to the PNC's 35%, and other smaller parties 10%, while another 10% of the votes could be up for grabs.
Outside of the not-so-surprising revelation that "the newly formed AFC is attracting a significant following and could hold the balance of power...with 6% (voters) support, which, when combined with the other mini-parties poll about 12%," what I want to address immediately is the statement in the news item: "Most Indians distrust the PNC and will stick with the PPP to keep the PNC out of office."
This distrust obviously stemmed, not only from the PNC's past as a party in government, but in recent post-election upheavals that threatened to turn civil society on its head with Indians always being targeted for physical and business attacks.
Perhaps hoping to use the concept of 'making Guyana ungovernable' to pull the PPP regime to consider shared governance, the PNC's strategy backfired, much to the relief of the PPP, which can now quietly point to the above quoted statement that its mission of exploiting the racial insecurity of its Indian support base could assure it being re-elected in 2006.
Note, however, that 'most Indians' are more likely to vote for the PPP to simply ensure the PNC is kept out. But this whole notion of voting for a party in order to keep out another party defeats the whole purpose of governing by shared vision. Now, once this is done on Election Day, what's next? I'll tell you what's next, the party that wins goes on to do its own thing in power, not really caring about the electorate's concerns, because the electorate did not vote for it on the basis of issues, but on the basis of racial insecurity.
That is why it is so darn disturbing and irritating that after Burnham's failed socialist policies and the collapse of communism under the Soviet Union, the PPP has the temerity to say it is adhering to socialist principles as its vehicle to move the country.
In fact, I have long been asking whether the lethargic pace of socio-economic recovery and growth is attributable to the ruling party's communist leaning, because this snail-paced movement fits in neatly with a plan to keep Guyana on a slow-growth rate with the hope of showing that free or open market system is not working, so Guyana should then link up Cuba and Venezuela and other ambitious socialist forces in the region.
Now, what would be interesting to know is what potential voters think of the PPP now that it has gone public with its claim to be a socialist/communist party? Will the ideological position of the main contenders matter to voters in the 2006 elections? More specifically, will 'most Indians' still vote for a communist PPP just to keep out a 'distrusted PNC', knowing communism has failed or is bad for Guyana, but that it is still being foisted on the nation because 'most Indians' who are uncomfortable with a PNC regime will automatically vote anyway for a PPP regime?
Before I end, permit me to state my deep concern over the publicity surrounding the convergence of the ‘smaller parties’ at a time when a viable Third Force, to be called the Alliance For Change, is getting ready to make its grand entrance on the political scene.
Yes, I know parties have a right to meet and form alliances, wherever and whenever and with whomever, but this particular timing could not have been worse. For the past few months, observers have been glued for new developments regarding the Third Force, but the ‘smaller parties’ calling a meeting the same month or around the same time of the Third Force being officially launched, it’s as though the ‘smaller parties’ want to steal the Third Force’s thunder.
This is divisive behaviour and it plays well into the open arms of the ruling party, which can point to undecided or swing voters that opponents are fragmented, and therefore will not be able to mount a serious challenge to the formidable PPP.
I would have preferred if the Third Force got launched, making its manifesto clear and plain to all, and if the ‘smaller parties’ – which already existed and need no grand introduction - feel they, too, have a manifesto, then go right ahead and make their case. If, per chance, the Third Force and the ‘smaller parties’ share a similar vision, then look for common ground on which to work together.
With the meeting already taken place, I would now settle for the leadership of the Third Force going ahead with its blueprint for the party and the nation, while the leaders of the ‘smaller parties’ can do likewise. However, I am against any attempt at this early stage to link the Third Force with the ‘smaller parties’ because the Third Force was born of a peculiar set of circumstances at a time when Guyanese are deeply frustrated with both the PPP and the PNC. This is a turning point moment in Guyana’s politics, and the momentum is with the Third Force.
Outside of the not-so-surprising revelation that "the newly formed AFC is attracting a significant following and could hold the balance of power...with 6% (voters) support, which, when combined with the other mini-parties poll about 12%," what I want to address immediately is the statement in the news item: "Most Indians distrust the PNC and will stick with the PPP to keep the PNC out of office."
This distrust obviously stemmed, not only from the PNC's past as a party in government, but in recent post-election upheavals that threatened to turn civil society on its head with Indians always being targeted for physical and business attacks.
Perhaps hoping to use the concept of 'making Guyana ungovernable' to pull the PPP regime to consider shared governance, the PNC's strategy backfired, much to the relief of the PPP, which can now quietly point to the above quoted statement that its mission of exploiting the racial insecurity of its Indian support base could assure it being re-elected in 2006.
Note, however, that 'most Indians' are more likely to vote for the PPP to simply ensure the PNC is kept out. But this whole notion of voting for a party in order to keep out another party defeats the whole purpose of governing by shared vision. Now, once this is done on Election Day, what's next? I'll tell you what's next, the party that wins goes on to do its own thing in power, not really caring about the electorate's concerns, because the electorate did not vote for it on the basis of issues, but on the basis of racial insecurity.
That is why it is so darn disturbing and irritating that after Burnham's failed socialist policies and the collapse of communism under the Soviet Union, the PPP has the temerity to say it is adhering to socialist principles as its vehicle to move the country.
In fact, I have long been asking whether the lethargic pace of socio-economic recovery and growth is attributable to the ruling party's communist leaning, because this snail-paced movement fits in neatly with a plan to keep Guyana on a slow-growth rate with the hope of showing that free or open market system is not working, so Guyana should then link up Cuba and Venezuela and other ambitious socialist forces in the region.
Now, what would be interesting to know is what potential voters think of the PPP now that it has gone public with its claim to be a socialist/communist party? Will the ideological position of the main contenders matter to voters in the 2006 elections? More specifically, will 'most Indians' still vote for a communist PPP just to keep out a 'distrusted PNC', knowing communism has failed or is bad for Guyana, but that it is still being foisted on the nation because 'most Indians' who are uncomfortable with a PNC regime will automatically vote anyway for a PPP regime?
Before I end, permit me to state my deep concern over the publicity surrounding the convergence of the ‘smaller parties’ at a time when a viable Third Force, to be called the Alliance For Change, is getting ready to make its grand entrance on the political scene.
Yes, I know parties have a right to meet and form alliances, wherever and whenever and with whomever, but this particular timing could not have been worse. For the past few months, observers have been glued for new developments regarding the Third Force, but the ‘smaller parties’ calling a meeting the same month or around the same time of the Third Force being officially launched, it’s as though the ‘smaller parties’ want to steal the Third Force’s thunder.
This is divisive behaviour and it plays well into the open arms of the ruling party, which can point to undecided or swing voters that opponents are fragmented, and therefore will not be able to mount a serious challenge to the formidable PPP.
I would have preferred if the Third Force got launched, making its manifesto clear and plain to all, and if the ‘smaller parties’ – which already existed and need no grand introduction - feel they, too, have a manifesto, then go right ahead and make their case. If, per chance, the Third Force and the ‘smaller parties’ share a similar vision, then look for common ground on which to work together.
With the meeting already taken place, I would now settle for the leadership of the Third Force going ahead with its blueprint for the party and the nation, while the leaders of the ‘smaller parties’ can do likewise. However, I am against any attempt at this early stage to link the Third Force with the ‘smaller parties’ because the Third Force was born of a peculiar set of circumstances at a time when Guyanese are deeply frustrated with both the PPP and the PNC. This is a turning point moment in Guyana’s politics, and the momentum is with the Third Force.
