Below is a commentary from Dr. Leslie Ramsammy:
The first real political test for Azruddin Mohamed and WIN came with the swearing-in of councilors for the ten Regional Demographic Councils and the elections for Chair and Vice-Chair for the ten geographic regions. By all indications and by any standard, Mohamed and WIN failed misrably. The PPP won elections for chair of eight (8) of the 10 regions – Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9. The PPP also won elections for seven of the 10 Vice-Chairs – Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9. WIN won elections for the Chair and Vice-Chair of Region 7. The election for Chair in Region10 ended in a deadlock between the candidate nominated by the PNC-led APNU and the candidate nominated by WIN.
When there is a deadlock between candidates, the person who ends up as Chair depends on a casting vote by the Minister of Local Government. Unless there is a negotiation between parties to end the deadlock, Minister Priya Manikchand will now have to cast a vote to determine whether the Regional Chairman will be the PNC-led APNU candidate or the WIN candidate. The reality was for WIN to offer APNU the VC position in Region 10. But that would not be enough to win APNU’s support since the PPP’s offer to APNU was the Chair’s position and to take the VC position. Clearly, for WIN, the challenge was to make their offer more attractive than the PPP’s offer, and there were varied ways to do so. WIN showed they lacked the experience to managed this situation. They failed.
As in Regions 4 and 8, none of the political parties had a clear majority of seats to determine the Chair and Vice-Chair for Regions 4, 8, and 10. It means that negotiation between the parties had to take place to determine who would be the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of these Regions. We know that the PNC-led APNU and WIN parties had negotiations. The PNC-led APNU issued a statement confirming those negotiations took place. WIN has not denied that negotiations took place. The PNC-led APNU stated unequivocally that the negotiations collapsed without any agreements.
In Region 4, therefore, the voting for Chair and Vice-Chair ended up with at least one member from the PNC-led APNU, FGM or WIN voting for the candidate nominated by the PPP. We cannot know which opposition councilor voted for the PPP candidate because it was a secret ballot. From public statements by various councilors, it appears that the person from the opposition that voted for the PPP was an APNU councilor. Since WIN candidates indicated they left their ballots blank, the 17 PPP votes for VC in Region 4 were more than enough to give the PPP the VC position also. Given that there were negotiations that took place between WIN and APNU, in their first big political test, WIN failed. Even though the PPP had by far the largest number of seats in the Region 4 council, WIN had a chance to make a deal with the PNC and FGM to block the PPP. WIN failed.
Given that the PPP controls central government, WIN, APNU and FGM, as responsible opposition parties, had an obligation and an opportunity to ensure that the largest RDC did not end up in the hands of the PPP. This, in particular, was a test for WIN, as the party that would lead the opposition in parliament, to demonstrate it had the ability to rattle the PPP. It failed miserably.
Region 8 elections ended with the PPP candidate for Chair and the APNU candidate for VC elected. Clearly, this meant that the PPP and the PNC-led APNU succeeded in negotiating an outcome. The PPP and WIN were in the exact position in Region 8 and clearly the PPP successfully negotiated with APNU for the Chair while conceding the VC position to APNU. This was a loss for WIN as it allowed the PPP to control another Region that WIN could have denied them.
In Region 10, another important region for any political party that is determined to play an effective role in the next five years, the opportunity to lock out the PPP exists. The fact that the election for Chair ended up in a deadlock between the APNU and WIN candidates when WIN only needs one vote to covet the Chair’s position signals the inability of WIN to effectively negotiate. It appears likely, therefore, that the PNC-led candidate would end up as Chair of Region 10 with a likely PPP-nominated candidate as the VC. The WIN leadership showed they lack political agility and political pragmatism to effectively represent their supporters.
In their very first test, Mohamed and WIN failed.
Now they are crying, bemoaning the fact that APNU did not support them and crying crocodile tears that the PPP now has prominence in nine of the 10 RDCs, with the possibility of having eight of the 10 Chair and VC positions, with WIN and the PNC-led APNU, each, having one Chair and VC positions.
The failure in their first political test has ramifications for WIN’s role in parliament. Parliament is not merely about debates and “pompositing”. Almost daily and almost in every sitting, there must be negotiation. While WIN definitely will have the leader of the opposition role, the question is whether they can rely on the support of the MPs from APNU and FGM. Can WIN effectively prevent the PPP from getting its way when there is need for a two-thirds majority votes in parliament? For example, there is the need for two-thirds majorities during the work of the Appointments Committee. Wherever there is need for more than majority support, can WIN effectively align the opposition votes?
Parliament’s convening will take place in a matter of days – at least, before November 2. The first major votes will be for the speaker and the deputy speaker. The PPP will nominate its candidate for the speaker’s position and will win that vote, with or without any support from the opposition WIN, APNU or FGM MPs. The PPP is likely to not oppose a candidate for the deputy speaker from amongst the opposition MPs. This is where a second test for WIN will emerge. Will they negotiate a consensus opposition candidate or will they allow multiple candidates with WIN, APNU and FGM nominating their own candidates? Will they allow the PPP to pick-and-choose?
WIN’s failure in the RDC elections for Chairs and VCs raises serious doubts whether they would be able to mobilize and align the opposition’s strength in parliament to oppose the PPP. WIN’s leader has reverted to crying and moaning over the results of the elections for Chair and VC in the RDCs. Instead, he needs to recognize that the voters have crafted, intentionally or unintentionally, the reality that mature, practical and pragmatic negotiations must take place. What WIN clearly demonstrated in this first test is that their approach so far lacks practicality, pragmatism and maturity. Crying like a spoilt brat is not the answer. Representing their supporters is their obligation, a responsibility that they have so far spectacularly failed to deliver.