New political culture?

Opposition Leader David Granger is reported to have stated that a “new political culture” is needed in Guyana. From his comments, he is evidently reacting to the gridlock that has developed in the National Assembly since the last general elections.
More specifically he suggests that this “new political culture” should engender a “relationship among the three parties in the National Assembly to ensure that the dialogue that takes place is for the benefit of all the people”.
On the surface, there is much that is commendable about Granger’s proposal and we are hoping that when the National Assembly reconvenes in a month’s time we will see whether he is serious. Up to now his actions have belied his asseveration. He mentioned the early initiative of President Donald Ramotar in establishing the “Tripartite Talks Mechanism” in which the leaders of the same three parties he cites met to dialogue on contentious issues.
The record of that mechanism is hardly encouraging on account of the intransigent posture adopted by first the Alliance For Change (AFC) and then Granger’s own A Partnership for National Unity (APNU).
In the first round of substantive talks surrounding budget 2012, the AFC went on a fishing expedition by demanding higher wages for public servants. For this blatant act of playing to the political gallery, he had to be reprimanded by the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) Lincoln Lewis.
The AFC soon withdrew and when APNU and the president struck a bargain on the equalisation of electricity tariffs for Linden in a quid pro quo for raising the old age pensions, they undercut APNU’s position and forced them into a tactical retreat. APNU and the AFC then inflicted massive cuts on the budget.
For this year’s budget, even though in the interregnum the chief justice had ruled that their prior budget cuts were unconstitutional, the opposition once again eschewed dialogue in the tripartite talks and repeated their cuts.
What became obvious by then was that they were intent on practising a political culture that rejected the supremacy of the constitution, which made a sharp distinction between the functions of the executive and the legislature.
The opposition insisted that they must play a role in crafting the budget which is exclusively an executive function.
As the chief justice ruled, if the executive were to lose this power, how else would it be able to execute the programme on the basis of which it won the executive? The government has consistently invited the opposition to meet with the Finance Ministry’s budget team and to make their proposals, as other social sector representatives do. But this does not satisfy the opposition’s definition of a “new political culture”.
In the last budget process, the APNU representative Carl Greenidge found any number of reasons for not attending the scheduled meetings.
In Granger’s present call for a “new political culture”, he disappointingly once again repeats his call for the opposition to usurp the executive budget-making authority. This time, he insists on the formation of a “tripartite budget committee” in which the three parties can “reach consensus” in crafting the budget. This will not do since it will simply confirm the executive’s abdication of its constitutional mandate.
But beyond the budget process, there was another opportunity for the opposition to demonstrate they were willing to place the best interest of the country before the lure of partisan politics. This opportunity presented itself when the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AMLCT) Bill came before the National Assembly.
The opposition had no substantive objections to any of the clauses in the bill, which had been demanded by the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF), and which if not passed by last August, would cause our financial instructions to be blacklisted.
The “new political culture” of the opposition caused the bill to lapse. We await its new performative expression.