A return to party paramountcy?

During the Budget debate, one member of the PPP/C raised the issue of the Government painting State institutions with the colours of the APNU/AFC coalition. This tendency of the coalition to deploy its colours at State functions had been noted as far back as the inauguration of President David Granger when, not only was the stage decked out in yellow and green but so were even the ceremonial bouquets that were placed at the Independence Arch.

This “coalition branding” has been replicated at countless occasions, but when the PPP/C MP pointed out the practice had now been extended to State buildings, for the first time, the Speaker of the House offered an explanation. The colours green and yellow, he stated, were “the colours of the national flag”. But as every schoolchild knows”, TWO colours of the GOLDEN Arrowhead are “gold and green” – not yellow and green. The Speaker was disingenuous. There are three other colours in the Guyanese flag: red, black and white, but none of them were ever used by the coalition – just the two that are the coalition’s colours.

The Speaker went so far as to cut off the microphone from PPP/C’s Chief Whip Gail Teixeira when she attempted to explain her MP’s observation. This denial of the right to speech in the Parliament of all places is one of the gravest violations of democracy in recent times in Guyana. The Speaker claims the PPP/C’s MPs were “lampooning” the flag of Guyana. This is a most risible reason to gag a parliamentarian in the long annals of Parliament in Guyana or in the world. The question, as was asked by Ms Teixeira in a later press conference, was why the other colours – including the PPP’s red and black, were never used.

But this question of using a ruling party’s colours on State institutions was raised within a historical context – that of the PNC once declaring “paramountcy of the party” over State institutions, including the Executive and Judiciary. The PNC’s flag was actually raised over the Court of Appeals in furtherance of this paramountcy doctrine. The present use of party colours is within the wider ambit of other manifestations of that doctrine and must be evaluated from that perspective rather than summarily dismissed.

In the 1974 Declaration of Sophia, Mr Burnham, leader of the PNC, stated, “In November of last year (1973) there was a Special Congress four months after our Party had won a two-thirds majority in Parliament. At this Congress, there were serious examination and a definition of the role of the Party in the new circumstances.

“It was agreed after lengthy discussion that the emphasis should be on mobilising the nation in every sphere and not merely for periodic elections and in support of specific action and programmes. It was also decided that the Party should assume unapologetically its paramountcy over the Government which is merely one of its executive arms.”

The policy defined in the declaration of Sophia rested on three main pillars: The expansion of military and paramilitary forces; allocation of State funds by way of a new body consisting of an amalgamation of the office of the General Secretary of the PNC and a newly formed Ministry of National Development, and a policy of controlling the economy especially employment through the State sector.

In the present, we have already seen the relaunch of the first pillar of party paramountcy. From 1974 there had been a considerable expansion of the armed forces with the creation of the Guyana National Service (GNS) followed in 1976 by the formation of the People’s Militia. The defence allocation from the public treasury experienced a six-fold increase.

The present concerns about “colours” must be seen within the wider context of the replication of the other pillars of party paramountcy. “A hint to Beneba mek Quasie tek notice”.