By James McAllister
There is a dastardly article circulating on social media with the aim of eviscerating the People’s National Congress Reform. It heaped scorn on officers of the party, denigrated and deprecated the party’s democratic process, disparaged individual members and the membership as a whole, and abased the office of Leader of the Party. It is a hatchet piece that would make even the PPP blush.
The anonymous writer challenged the credibility of the elections at the PNCR last Biennial Congress and even referred to the executive as installed. This writer derisively challenged the credentials of the Chairman, Vice-chairmen, General Secretary and Treasurer of the Party. Lamentation abound about wisdom of the membership in electing these persons. The writer exposed dangerous elitist thinking, that value the opinion of a few over the decision of the broad membership when exercising their franchise.
The criticism of Shurwayne Holder is amusing, because some feel only lawyers could lead. It is even more amusing because not too long ago many commented similarly when Bharrat Jagdeo was appointed President, yet today he is one of the most skillful politicians in the country. It is amusing because highlighting supposed weaknesses of persons on Aubrey Norton’s slate points to Norton’s strength relative to the persons he contested against.
The writer argued that Norton’s slate was weak, but yet the slate was elected. The writer is tacitly admitting/suggesting that Aubrey Norton is so popular he was able to have everyone he chose elected. He was able to do so in a free, fair and transparent election. This does not point to any weaknesses in the electoral process, unless the writer is suggesting the members of the party are stupid and should not have the right to make decisions on who should lead the Party. In fact, it points to the members of the Party placing overwhelming confidence in Aubrey Norton to lead.
The writer lamented the formation of a faction to oppose David Granger. However, the response of the membership suggests something different. Mr. Granger as the sitting Leader of the Party, never made a public announcement he was not contesting, yet he failed to secure a single nomination. Not a single nomination is mind boggling. Clearly Volda Lawrence, Gary Best, Winston Felix, Richard Van West Charles, and Edward Collins had their fingers on the pulse of the Party. This is not factionalism, this is a response to the unanimous desire of the membership. Kudos to them.
This and other vicious attacks on the PNCR is because of the ill-advised public announcement that the Central Executive Committee decided that the Party Leader should be Leader of the Opposition and Representative of the List. This is an issue that should have been discussed quietly, and resolved amicably. However, those who argue that the PNCR CEC is out of place to make this decision are nothing but a band of political pirates using guile and subterfuge to separate the PNCR from its supporters.
There are a few points to note. Firstly, the small parties in APNU did not bring votes, they brought credibility to the PNCR persona as an inclusive party. This credibility, while useful and desirable, never translated into votes. Secondly, when the WPA floated the idea that there was benefit in the PNCR not being the chairman of APNU nor the presidential candidate, the PNCR insisted both positions are unconditionally PNCR. It was a decision for the Central Executive Committee of the Party then, and it is a decision for the Central Executive Committee of the Party now.
Of course, the PNCR could reverse its decision and decide Granger should remain Representative of the List and Harmon as Leader of the Opposition. However, the right of the PNCR to decide cannot be challenged. Nevertheless, there is nothing automatic about the PNCR decision. It is not the ruling of a court that would result in rendering the offices vacant. However, the decision should cause responsible and discipline party members who are affected to formally engage the party to arrive at an amicable resolution.
The Party could ill afford a Leader of the Opposition and a Representative of the List who are disconnected from it, acting to achieve objectives they personally determined. It is a dangerous situation which could be disastrous for the long term well-being of the PNCR supporters. This is a matter the party must consider internally to arrive at resolutions which are in the best interest of the members and supporters.