It’s all about power among Guyana’s two major political parties – PPP and APNU, Not so much about democracy and democratic choices.
Regardless of how the two parties present themselves to voters – as multiracial, all-encompassing, inclusive, or otherwise – their absolute goal is to secure power. The people and the future of the country are secondary.
Ramblings about shared governance and inclusionary democracy, though theoretically feasible solutions to dilute the power of either the PPP or APNU,

are futile because there will always be disagreement on which party should wield the most power in the government. And neither the PPP nor APNU will be willing to share power without conflict. The hunger for power is entrenched in the country’s deep racial divide – Indians versus Blacks - which is manifested in support for each of those parties. Although the emergence of minority parties have the potential to attract voters who are disenchanted with the top two, they have never been able to garner sufficient support to break the stranglehold of the two behemoths.
The AFC, the only fringe party, with the exception of the now defunct UF, which had the potential to change the political order based on its promise of mass inclusiveness, turned out to be no more than a sidekick of APNU upon accessing power. This has caused it to lose favor, once voters recognized that it has no voice or inclination to be anything more than a prop for the APNU government.
Other fringe parties, mostly led by persons who have their own axes to grind, have never had a significant impact on the structure of power, making them hopeless “also ran” contenders.
What many Guyanese are hoping for is that a powerful and credible “third force” would emerge and weaken support for both the PPP and APNU, putting them in a position to form a coalition with either the PPP or APNU on their own terms and conditions, with the power to sway decisions and the independence to shift support if necessary. But for now, this is simply a dream.
Therefore, the status quo of the struggle for power between APNU and the PPP would remain intact in the near term, though the possibility of another coalition government cannot be ruled out. But such coalition would still be controlled by either the PPP or APNU.
The current political stalemate exposes the real quest for power. The government has chosen to hang on to power in spite of a no-confidence motion against it last December 21.
Although both the speaker of the National Assembly and the country’s Chief Justice have ruled that the no-confidence vote is valid, the government has decided to appeal the decision on the grounds that full adjudication of the issue is necessary in the national interest.
This action serves to delay the holding of general and local government elections which are constitutionally due within 90 days following the no-confidence vote.
According to the Chief Justice, the successful no-confidence motion should have triggered the immediate resignation of the Cabinet, including President David Granger.
Chief Justice Roxanne George-Wiltshire, in handing down her decision, said there is a clear distinction between the Cabinet and the government and explained that even where the former resigns, there would still be a government, made up of the president and ministers, who are to perform their duties and functions until elections are held and a new government is sworn in.
She further noted that the President and ministers cannot remain in government longer than three months, within which elections are required to be held, unless a longer period is granted by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly.
But the APNU-AFC coalition is still in power. And neither the Cabinet nor the President has yet resigned.
In the meantime, the PPP, smelling the possibility of regaining power, is adamant that elections must be held before the end of March. Its leader and former President Bharrat Jagdeo has threatened to sue the Guyana Elections Commission which is apparently not in a position of readiness to hold elections or is simply acting in consort with the government to delay elections for as long as possible.
But APNU has officially launched its election campaign, which would indicate that it is preparing for elections, and not waiting for a decision on its appeal of the no-confidence motion.
The struggle for power will escalate heading into elections as well as after elections. If the outcome is a majority government then the power score will be settled. Though welcome by whichever party wins, the age old question of shared governance will once again rear its ugly head, especially among APNU supporters who have been most vocal on the subject in the past when that party was in the opposition. They have emphasized the question of marginalization of a significant percentage of the population but such questions have failed to materialize during the current APNU-AFC administration.
Granted, APNU’s President Granger has been vocal on the subject of inclusionary democracy but only subject to his own terms of implementation. Therein lies the reason why inclusionary democracy would not work. Regardless of which party attains power, each party would want to set its own terms and conditions for participation.
Plus, the government and the opposition in Guyana have had a history of non-cooperation. They never seem to be able to reach consensus on most issues because their expectations are different.
The underlying problem is that the objectives of shared governance and inclusionary democracy are two-fold: to provide the perception that the parties are collaborating to run the country; and two give the opposition an opportunity to share power.
The question that arises is why would a majority party under any circumstances want to share power or collaborate with the opposition? While there might be scope for collaboration, it would be meaningless because control will always be exerted by the majority party, giving rise to conflict.
The outcome of the next general elections – whenever it is held – will be instructive on how power will be distributed or not distributed. At least three new fringe parties will be vying for the spoils and an outside chance of forming a coalition government, if either the PPP or APNU does not win a majority.
But if either party wins a majority, then the power structure will remain the same. And the people will have to live with no real change in the structure of power.
In reality, the composition of the population and the historical pattern of racial voting lends to both APNU and the PPP having expectations of attaining power. Both parties have also used members of different ethnicities to attract votes outside their traditional support base, to enhance their chances of being elected to power.
For now the people of Guyana have little choice in changing which of the two party governs them – whether they like or dislike both parties.

Georgetown – The Private Sector Commission (PSC) has raised concern over public statements by APNU+AFC administration representatives which they say deny the express ruling of acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire to uphold the no-confidence motion passed against government on December 21st last year.
In a press statement this week, the PSC took aim at government and its representatives for claiming that “until the matter is concluded at the highest court of appeal the status quo remains and the business of government continues as usual.”
It argued that the statement clearly, and apparently with deliberate intent, flies in the face of the decision of the judge not to grant Attorney General Basil Williams a Conservatory Order preserving the “status quo ante.”
“Clearly, therefore, in the view of the Commission, her ruling remains in place unless successfully appealed in a superior court,” the PSC said, before adding that it expects the President and his government to respect and honour this decision and proceed to have elections held no later than March 21st as required by Article 106 of the Constitution.
In her ruling last Thursday, the acting Chief Justice upheld the validity of the vote on the motion and said that this should have triggered the immediate resignation of the Cabinet, including the President, paving the way for new elections within three months unless an extension is agreed.
The PSC said that it believes it speaks for the majority of the nation when it expresses its concern over public statements contrary to the judge’s decision and warns that such statements could lead Guyana into a situation of grave instability and an illegal government resulting.
In making its call, the PSC, which said it speaks “for the business community with hundreds of billions invested in the development of our economy and the employment of some 60% of our workforce,” joined the United Nations and the European Union, each of which have called on government to respect the Constitution.
Last Friday, United Nations Resident Representative Mikiko Tanaka called on government to “demonstrate its integrity and respect of Guyana’s Constitution and the Judiciary that constitutes the foundations of the rule of law and good governance” while the Delegation of the European Union in Guyana on Monday implored “all concerned parties and stakeholders to uphold the Constitution.”
The EU Delegation further stated that it “looks forward to free and fair elections being held as appropriate and in line with all Constitutional provisions.” It said it is continuing to closely follow the developments after the no-confidence vote in the National Assembly.
“The Delegation of the European Union calls on all concerned bodies and stakeholders to uphold the Constitution, respecting democratic procedures and the rule of law. Procedures should be managed efficiently, with openness and transparency.”
According to the Delegation, it welcomes the expeditious handling of the related court cases so far, and hopes that the further legal process can be expedited, for the benefit of Guyana, its people and its development, in view of pending Foreign Direct Investments.

Georgetown – Two Commissioners who showed up for a meeting of the Commission’s operations sub-committee on Monday, have informed that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Secretariat has presented July as the earliest date for the holding of general and regional elections, .
July is two months after the expiration of the current voters’ list, which remains valid until April 30th, and over three months after the constitutional deadline for the holding of the polls, unless an extension is set by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly.
Opposition-nominated Commissioner Robeson Benn told reporters following the cancelled meeting that the work plans provided by the Secretariat “in large measure ignore the constitutional requirement for elections by March 19.”
“One timeline I’ve seen in respect of suggestion of the holding of elections is July. That is one of a number of timelines provided for our consideration. I hold that elections can and should be held by March 19, 2019. There is still sufficient time for elections to be held by the constitutional deadline… other deadlines … go on to suggest house-to-house registration and all kinds of things for six months or more,” he explained, while charging that these timelines point to collusion between some persons in respect of avoiding holding elections. “Some of those persons reside or work at GECOM,” a visibly frustrated Benn claimed.
Co-Chair of the sub-committee Sase Gunraj was similarly incensed, telling reporters that there was no actual meeting since the logistical staff which normally facilitate the meeting was absent and the reports were received a mere hour and a half before the scheduled start time.
“We did not have a meeting. I received these documents at 12.30 pm today Monday. When I arrived at GECOM at 2 pm, it was obvious that no meeting was planned for today. The boardroom was closed. We did not have access to the boardroom. There was no support staff present and as is usual and customary. The CEO [Chief Election Officer] met with us about 2.20 pm and he said to us he was not aware that we had a meeting today,” he added.

Gunraj further noted that having received the documents at 12.30, he could not “just peruse and give an opinion on it.”
“These are matters of national importance and as a consequence receiving these documents and being expected to make meaningful contributions by 2 pm, it’s clear even if I had nothing else to do I could not do this,” he stressed before adding that another meeting of the sub-committee was, therefore, set for 10 am today.
GECOM readiness to conduct the elections has come under scrutiny in wake of the passage of a no-confidence motion against the government in the National Assembly last December, which would require the holding of polls within three months.
Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield on Monday refuted accusations that the Secretariat, which he heads, is attempting to delay elections and maintained that the “Secretariat is directed by the Commission, so the Secretariat cannot move to the conduct of an elections unless the Commission decides we will do this.”
“If we are going to have a claims and objections, for example for 10 days or 7 days or 9 days, the Commission decides that and pass those decisions to the Secretariat for execution,” he said.
Asked specifically if elections can be held by March 19th, Lowenfield noted that he would like to be on the same page with the commissioners before he speaks publicly on the matter.
However, Lowenfield told reporters that the current voters list is sufficient for the holding of elections. “The list is clean. It has a life until 30thApril,” he said, before adding that it can be used for elections if the Commission so decides.
According to Lowenfield, the timeline for any house-to-house registration exercise will also depend on the decision of the Commission.
“It depends on a lot of factors – are we going to have 400 additional sub-offices or 200? The Commission will decide if we will be in the field for four months and if we are going to do that, we have to have training before to ensure we have staff who will execute. The minutiae is to be determined by the Commission,” he stressed, while noting that minimum timeframe is three or four months in the field.

Georgetown – Chairman of the Alliance for Change, Khemraj Ramjattan says that if offered by his party, he would agree to replace Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo as President David Granger’s running mate, going into the next General Elections.
“I would certainly accept the nomination,” he said when asked by the media if he would accept the offer by his party for the position.
And while AFC Leader Raphael Trotman has said that he supports Nagamootoo and warns that replacing him at this time was indicative of accepting that the APNU+AFC coalition has failed as a government, Ramjattan said that is just Trotman’s personal opinion. As such, it should not be construed to be taken as a party stance since the party has not yet decided on the matter.
Ramjattan, the Minister of Public Security, stressed that his portfolio rests with and will be decided by the party when it votes at its next congress.
“Obviously what Raphael is indicating is his personal opinion and we got a lot of personal opinions in a liberal democratic party,” he said.
“The no-confidence motion was a direct challenge on the Granger/Nagamootoo leadership. In my view, if we were to jump to replace either gentleman in an emotive way, we would be openly conceding that the motion and vote were justified and valid,” Trotman said in a recent press interview.
Although other members of the AFC’s leadership have stated that it is unlikely that Nagamootoo would be proposed as the Prime Ministerial candidate again, Trotman believes that Nagamootoo should remain where he is as there is no other candidate to attract more votes than him.
Senior party officials have said that decisions about the AFC’s future will be made at its upcoming national conference. While a date has not yet been set for the conference, officials have assured that it will be held by March 31st, 2019, as per the party’s constitution.

(Kaieteur News) – Guyana should not allow ExxonMobil and any of its subcontractors for that matter, to continue using the exorbitant travelling rates of American Airlines.
In fact, the authorities need to disallow this ruthless practice during its cost audits because it is Guyana that will have to pay for these airfare expenses at the end of the day.
This viewpoint was proffered by Chartered Accountant, Chris Ram during an exclusive interview with Kaieteur News.
His comments come in wake of an article carried by Kaieteur News on February 3 with the headline, “ExxonMobil’s exploration…. Guyana is paying for American Airlines presence here.”
Ram said, “It is clear that the contractor (ExxonMobil) should not be using American Airlines. They must be made to use the most reasonable fares available and if the contractor insists on using the exorbitant rates, then we should disallow them from doing this in our cost oil audits. That is the assertive supervision we need to exercise when the contractor gets ready to claim for expenses.
“But I have another issue, in granting American Airlines permission to use the Guyana route, was any enquiry made about what their level of charges is going to be? It is not because the word American is in their name that we must say ‘Oh great! American Airlines is coming to Guyana.’ If they are simply coming to take advantage of a weak negotiating position that Guyana displayed during the signing of its contract with Exxon and to do exorbitant pricing against Guyanese travellers then that is clearly unacceptable.”
The tax advisor added, “At some point we have to start standing up to people who are treating us like we are just a backward third world country. But surely the person responsible must call on the oil contractors and say to them that this is unacceptable and we would not allow them to use airlines with such exorbitant charges because they are just going to turn around and try to claim for it.”
Kaieteur News also spoke with a representative of the airline industry in Barbados on this matter. The official indicated that the exorbitant prices being charged by American airlines for their business class tickets by far exceeds a first class ticket to China from Barbados and even to the UK from Barbados.
Kaieteur News also understands that Spirit and United Airlines have an interest in venturing into Guyana’s aviation industry, but it is yet to be confirmed if they have been granted permission by the local authorities.
It was last year November that US aviation giant, American Airlines, started flights between Guyana and the US, adding the important Miami to Timehri route.
It was widely thought at the time that the coming of flights from one of the biggest airlines in the world would help to bring prices down.
However, the presence of American Airlines has done everything but help to drive prices down.
From all indications, the prices of American Airlines tickets are as astronomical as they can get.
And the reason is, American Airlines are targeting mainly employees and others related to the oil exploration operations currently ongoing in Guyana.
Guyana as part of its oil profit-sharing arrangement with ExxonMobil for the Stabroek Block is responsible for all oil exploration expenses including those for travel and accommodation. The travel expenses include the cost of air tickets for the staff of the oil companies.
American Airlines has perhaps the highest fares for travel between Guyana and Miami. In some cases, the cost of a one-way ticket is as much as seven times higher than the cost of tickets to the same destination on other air carriers.
For example, a business class round trip flight to Miami via Caribbean Airlines between February 6 and March 6 cost approximately US$800 on other airlines plying the same route. On American Airlines, the same ticket would cost US$6,059.
Caribbean Airline Economy fare to the same destination on the same date is US$474.
For American Airlines the cost is US$3,179.
The ExxonMobil staff is flown home every 28 days on rotation. Reportedly, American Airlines, which uses an Airbus 319 aircraft with 130 seats, is the main carrier for the oil companies operating in Guyana. Local company Roraima Airways is handling the ground operations on behalf of AA.
Last week Monday, the price for a one-way economy class ticket from Guyana to Miami from Caribbean Airlines, was US$295. Whereas, the price for the same ticket from Suriname Airways on the same route was US$285.
For American Airlines, it was more than double at US$731. Guyana was handed a pre-2015 exploration bill of more than US$800M by ExxonMobil. Later this year, it will be handed another bill for post-oil cost. Those costs include hotel accommodation, air travels, and other miscellaneous expenses.
American Airlines business class and economy tickets to other countries are way cheaper than their Guyana fares.
A comparison of airfares between American and Caribbean Airlines is shown below:

Immigration >