(Reproduced from the Sunday Guardian with the permission of the author.)
Last weekend, there was a plethora of discussion about coalition politics as a new way forward in Trinidad and Tobago.
On Saturday, the Foundation for Leadership and Change held a symposium at UWI to discuss the subject, while on Sunday, PNM Chairman, Franklin Khan, broached the subject on behalf of the PNM in this newspaper (Sunday Guardian).
With coalition contagion catching on, the discussion at UWI was indeed rich insofar as it highlighted different aspects of the subject. Perhaps, what was most glaring was the fact that so many persons still view politics in this country in two-party terms and their analyses tend to follow suit.
Franklin Khan admitted in his interview that “the PNM has a difficulty to win a general election when it is a one on one fight.” The forces that made up the People’s Partnership in the last general election have recognised that for years, but they have had difficulty in sustaining unity over the years.
The 1981 and 2007 general elections proved that point when there was divisiveness in the forces lined up against the PNM. However, 1986, 1995 and 2010 proved the point that unity of purpose can make a difference in removing the PNM from power. The problem with 1986 and 1995 is that there was fracturing after the NAR (1986) and the UNC-NAR coalitions (1995) took power.
In many respects, these forces that have been traditionally opposed to the PNM have grown so accustomed to being in opposition that they really have had little difficulty throwing power away when they had it.
Their psychology is such that returning to opposition is not a problem because that is what they know. Political power is a stranger to their psyche and the struggles of their supporters to advance their own lives have been accomplished largely without political patronage from the State.
The manner in which the NAR imploded and the UNC-NAR coalition collapsed to the point where the UNC contested the THA elections in 2001 for the sole purpose of causing the NAR to lose control of the THA tells the story.
As Lloyd Best had argued before, the PNM has been the natural party of government in this country. However, the failures of the past for these anti-PNM forces have been failures of leadership.
However, after the last general election, these forces got a third chance to hold power and they did it in a different format. Will they copy the approach of the UNC-NAR coalition of 1995-2000 that ended in enmity and hatred or will they apply tolerance and suppress their ambitions to dominate?
Franklin Khan made a very significant revelation when he said that the policies and principles of the PNM “are more aligned to the COP than the UNC.” While this might have been a strategic dig at the COP in the People’s Partnership, it is also a recognition that many PNM voters have, in fact, migrated to the COP from the PNM as was shown in the two elections in 2010.
The suggestion here is that the PNM and the COP could become political allies in a coalition if things do not work out in the People’s Partnership for them. This is the first time that any PNM official has ever broached the idea of a coalition alliance with any other political party.
The clarion call of the party is “Great is the PNM and it shall prevail.” That does not lend itself to coalition politics as it is hegemonic and domineering and clearly does not embrace or entertain a coalition alliance.
Patrick Manning remained faithful to that clarion call when he stated categorically during the 1995 general election campaign that the PNM would stand alone, win alone and lose alone. That was the basis on which ANR Robinson said that he did not see any need to discuss with the PNM the possibility of a coalition in 1995 in the aftermath of the 17-17-2 result.
However, those parties that make up the People’s Partnership have begun a process of sharing power that is likely to deny any one of them the ability to single- handedly capture power. If they fracture, they are unlikely to win on their own and, instead, such an outcome would be more likely to facilitate the return of the PNM to power.
Franklin Khan recognised that in his interview when he said that when “there is a three way split it is very easy to beat the opponent.” The challenge for the People’s Partnership is whether they can retain their separate identities, remain unified in government, act divided as individual parties, and function as allies and not enemies.
That would be the magic potion of survival for the Partnership that could work, while many persons are still trying to figure it out through their two-party system lenses that are colour blind to the kaleidoscope of a coalition.
If the PNM is contemplating going the route of a coalition approach to politics, would it be in their interest to split votes or to share seats?
No comments:
Post a Comment