One of these ‘parties’ is headed by a former WPA member who maintained her seat in Parliament after the WPA withdrew its membership from the APNU. The other is a former leader in the JFAP who resigned from said Party to become a member of the PNCR, before subsequently resigning from politics. Sharma ‘s position differs from that of Sarabo who resigned from the WPA amidst concerns that the WPA was not consulted on her being their candidate of choice for parliament. She was unilaterally selected from the WPA by David Granger and after the WPA resigned from the Coalition in protest she remained in parliament occupying a seat with no clearly identified loyalty and commitment to the Political Party which would have sacrificed a seat for her to squat on, albeit with permission from David Granger. Sarabo’s political strength and ability to mobilise a viable constituency is seen by some as a mockery of the seriousness of the APNU partnership and the political acumen of the Granger-led coalition when it comes to amassing real tangible support. Rather than being a strategy for the PPP, it appears to be one to deal with the challenges he faces in the PNCR.
This new decision of David Granger to add these two entities to APNU is not only in violation of the PNCR but one that shows further blatant disregard for The APNU Coalition and the spirit of consultation and respect for Coalition and Party management. It represents a series of unilateral moves and disregard for consultative leadership and internal democracy. Sarabo benefits with no commitment or loyalty expected.
The PNCR, as the major partner, has a history of participative democracy throughout it’s broad-based multi-tiered structure and leadership levels. David Granger’s autocratic style of leadership and undermining of the widest possible participation and contribution of membership is becoming more evident. It places a stranglehold on the PNCR and also on APNU, that does not serve well the members, supporters and others wishing to identify with the party. It is ineffective and isolating thus weakening the very ability of the Coalition, APNU and the PNCR to best represent its support base and voters. It cripples the APNU’s effectiveness as an alternative government, a government in waiting. It is this very style of leadership that has caused the hemorrhaging of support and membership in both the APNU and PNCR. Further, there is no doubt the concomitant disarray that it has created has made citizens vulnerable to PPP excesses and aggression. This is evidenced in the attack unleashed on GECOM officials and other sections of the Guyanese community, the undermining of the Guyana Police Service Commission, the mismanagement of COVID and the recent flood affecting Guyanese in multiple Regions, the return of large bulk Narco trafficking, narco-style murders and so forth.
Membership of APNU is not only a question because of the obvious lack of valid support and constituents for these two new parties. It is of concern that said actions have the potential to whittle away seats from the PNCR – with no guaranteed or concomitant loyalty. David Granger’s political chicanery that is not evident in opposition strategy for the PPP is evidently at work against his own Party members. Unfortunately, many members seem to be devoid of awareness. Some are afraid least they loose their position of influence, or bread winning capacity. Unless the Central Executive of the PNCR takes a firm stand to hold David Granger accountable to the rules of the Party and the people who elected him then they stand the risk of falling victim to his autocratic leadership, the PPP, other predatory and unfriendly forces.
As a matter of concern there is a view that a deliberate effort is being made by David Granger who is aided by an ambitious, opportunistic General-Secretary to unwittingly alter the political strength of the main opposition political party. No doubt the PNCR is now perceived as the political force that is ripe for predatory political interests. Members of the Party are at their most vulnerable for lack of guidance and effective leadership.
Mr. Granger has no political response for the PPP, he has no friends, domestic, regional or international, no support outside of those who benefit directly from his control of parliamentary seats. He has failed the Party that elected him as its leader by isolating key members, its base and friends of the Party. He has rendered the Party into an inefficient one man show, created deep divides and separated the parliamentary powers from the Party. He has failed to effectively represent the party in its electoral bid and controversy during the last elections where the PPP asserted themselves as a force, by any means necessary that he seemed unable to comprehend, match and respond to. He has his knees on the necks of the party members who worked to elect the Coalition. Members must remove this knee from their necks swiftly and surgically least the PNCR becomes a party of the past, its members scattered into the wilderness or strangled by his political ineptness.
TIME FOR DAVID GRANGER”S STRANGLEHOLD OF THE PNCR TO BE RELEASED . Enough is Enough!
Regards
Name Provided
