A ‘no-confidence’ vote finds Guyana politics in uncharted territory · Global Voices
Guyana's parliament building. Photo by <PERSON>, CC BY-NC 2.0.
On December 21, 2018, the 65 members of Guyana's parliament gathered to vote on a no-confidence motion brought by the opposition People's Progressive Party (PPP) against the governing coalition party, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU).
With a “yes” vote by <PERSON>, a parliamentarian with the Alliance for Change (AFC), one of the political parties that comprise the governing coalition, the no-confidence motion passed 33 to 32, leaving the government in disarray and facing the prospect of a general election.
Constitutionally, that election must be held in 90 days — by March 2019 at the latest. <PERSON>, meanwhile, has since fled Guyana, claiming he's fearful for his life. This, despite journalist <PERSON>'s revelation that <PERSON> had confided intentions to form a new political party to contest the 2019 general elections.
The move came amidst a swirl of corruption allegations against the government by opposition leader <PERSON>, as well as concerns about higher taxes, job losses and an increased cost of living.
There was some speculation, however, that with Guyana on the brink of becoming a major oil producer, <PERSON>'s PPP may be eager to get back into government. (His administration, voted out of office in 2015, was under scrutiny for corruption and extra-judicial killings.)
Prior to the vote, the coalition government made it clear that it was “not for sale”, but there has been online speculation that — despite <PERSON>'s insistence that he voted according to his conscience — his no-confidence vote was bought and paid for. There has been no evidence of this.
<PERSON>, meanwhile, suggested that <PERSON>'s decision may have been influenced by the layoff of thousands of sugar workers in his constituency. Still, some onlookers feel that if <PERSON> was unhappy about how the government was managing certain sectors, abstention from the vote would have sent a strong message without undermining his own government.
Although the government chastised the motion of no-confidence as “hypocritical” and “a diversion”, Guyana now finds itself in uncharted territory.
A Stabroek News editorial found it “heartening that President <PERSON> and his government have immediately accepted the outcome of the vote and have committed to complying with the constitutional stipulations”, saying, “[t]his bodes well for the country.”
Did the motion pass — or not?
Even as the government acknowledged the result of the vote, a few voices began to challenge it. <PERSON>, an attorney whose wife is a government minister, suggested that “for a no-confidence motion to pass and be valid, the motion has to enjoy more votes than one-half of the full house [—] 34 votes”:
The house voted 33:32
33 is a rounding down of what constitutes half of the house.
The motion consequently was not carried.
At first, attorney and former Speaker of the National Assembly of Guyana, <PERSON>, seemed to concur, but corrected his stance on Facebook:
For a no confidence motion to succeed Article 106(6) of the Constitution requires ‘the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly…’ 33 as against 32 is a majority. 327
When I said that two votes were required for the no confidence motion to succeed, I was obviously wrong. I meant two abstentions.
He later noted that the bigger issue was the country's one-party majority rule.
Chinks in the armour
The result showed up the dissension happening within the coalition government. Earlier this year, for instance, some coalition-affiliated columnists were dropped from the state-owned Guyana Chronicle newspaper, a move thought to silence their criticism of the government.
The AFC then decided to contest November's local government elections alone. This solo effort fared quite badly, showing up the coalition's strained relations and stripping away the facade of united leadership. The local government elections also revealed fresh gains by the PPP in some areas, most notably in Berbice. Though the region has always been a PPP stronghold, APNU/AFC had thought it had made gains in the area in 2015 thanks to the presence of <PERSON>, the current prime minister, but the local government election eroded any such belief. In the words of author <PERSON>:
People treating <PERSON> betrayal as if it's the disease itself as opposed to a symptom of it. Carry on. Let one man's action suddenly erode all the dysfunction that preceded it. 892