By Oscar Dolphin- I view the current, sometimes intemperate, debate between PNC/R members and supporters, notwithstanding the wild and unsupported allegations that sometimes accompany it, as not necessarily personal and fratricidal, but a rather vigorous and welcome search and affirmation of political identity and purpose. This process is not unique to the PNC/R; the PPP/C recently held its Congress and its leadership decided to make cosmetic changes to its political identity by supposedly rejecting its Marxist-Leninist constructs.
Unlike the PPP/C’s centrist and scripted approach, the process within the PNC/R is more open and uncontrolled and appears more chaotic and conflicted. Since Aubrey Norton became Leader of the PNC/R more than two years ago he has sought to develop a passive, submissive orientation (I call the Norton Doctrine) which is alien to the PNC/R’s history, its lead role in the struggle for independence, self-determination, equality of opportunity and access to the national patrimony, human dignity, social development and the promise of a good life for all.
Recent events have conspired to reverse that vision and past achievements as never before in our history and members and supporters of the PNC/R and the wider community have looked to the party’s leadership for guidance and support in meeting this clear and present danger and existential threat. Lest we forget, I will attempt a brief summary of the developments that culminated in the elevation of Mr. Norton in 2021. Throughout its history, the PPP/C has always maintained that it alone held governmental office in Guyana legitimately and that all other governments were contrived and illegitimate and that it had a duty to expose, undermine, disrupt and dismantle them until it could return to power and remain there indefinitely.
After their 2015 defeat following 23 continuous years in office, former Presidents Ramotar and Jagdeo were very clear that the PPP/C never recognized the Granger administration which they considered as having “seized power” in a fraudulent election and the PPP/C immediately begun to implement a multi-dimensional, multi-phased plan to return to office, directed by their “master strategist”.
First, there was the pre-election phase initiated with the no-confidence Vote (NCV) intended to unseat a democratically-elected government, not at the polls, but by treachery misrepresented as conscientious, principled and patriotic protest, followed by a vigorous campaign of economic and political destabilisation, allegations of intent to rig the elections, legal campaigns to resist cleansing the voters list and replacement of Justice Patterson as Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission.
Even before this they had forced the resignation of Patterson’s predecessor, Dr. S. Surujbally through unrelenting street protests. The PPP/C then attempted to force the resignation of the President, Cabinet and National Assembly, and premature elections. It succeeded in causing the National Assembly not to function for a year before its dissolution by the President, and the government to accept many restrictions on its legitimate power and authority. The NCV provided the pretext for the PPP/C to engage in open political and economic sabotage against the state under the guise of democratic protest.
The PPP/C claimed that the government was illegal and unconstitutional, and cajoled the international community, agencies and corporations to suspend and/or terminate all agreements, contracts and co-operation with, and support for, the government. It waged a similar campaign locally, and exhorted local businesses and citizens to withdraw their co-operation with the government and led protest actions which threatened the security of the President and Cabinet Ministers.
Then came the election campaign and a co-ordinated series of actions, justified by dubious claims of possessing evidence of fraud and spurious demands for “verification”, to discredit and disrupt the tabulation of votes, prevent an unfavourable declaration and introduce contingent procedures for tabulation and certification to reverse legitimate results.
The APNU+AFC government was defeated through fraud, intimidation and harassment of election workers, constitutional engineering, insurrection and international pressure to effect a coup d’état. During this period there was unprecedented civil disorder, business and school closures and arson, buses transporting school children were burnt and damaged and several school children, and police officers. attacked and wounded.
Even now the PPP/C continues to hold the nation’s children to ransom by perpetuating the impasse with the teachers union and has consolidated and expanded its power grab in the post-election period through political vindictiveness; arrests of political opponents, including former Ministers, and election officials; uncontrolled corruption; assault on the judiciary, press and labour; neutering of oversight bodies and the absence of inclusivity and fairness in national development.
I have concluded that the PPP/C’s continuing assaults, seemingly without resistance, or a forceful response, caused many to believe that the calm, tactical and non-confrontational approach of the previous party leader only emboldened their tormentors and saw in Norton a symbol of their determination to resist and defend their rights.
The delegates to the last party Congress in 2021 clearly understood, like Frederick Douglass (former slave who worked for the emancipation of slaves in the U.S), that “power concedes nothing without demand” and that “it is better to have a right destroyed than to abandon it out of fear”. For this reason, I believe, that the election of Aubrey Norton, who was considered, by reputation at least, to be more aggressive and confrontational, was near unanimous and greeted with great enthusiasm and expectancy. That he declined this role was a great disappointment to the many who advanced his career, not because of any supposed leadership abilities, or experience, or strategic thinking but for his pugnacity.
In 2021, the other candidates for Party Leader clearly possessed superior qualifications, experience and achievements but received limited support. In a few short weeks the delegates to the PNC/R’s 22nd Biennial Congress will decide if their considered criteria for Leader of this great party include the ability to deliver fiery speeches, or organise a bingo or B-B-Q or street protest, or whether they will fulfil their responsibilities to the many PNC/R members and supporters to elevate a leader who is capable of grasping the multi-dimensional nature of responsible and advantageous political representation (including protest action) and is determined to work with, and elevate, other leaders within the party.
Ralph Nader, US political activist, offered that “the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers”. Von Goethe concurs, saying that “a great person attracts great people and knows how to keep them together.” The choice between Norton and Forde cannot be clearer.
_________
Oscar Dolphin is an educator and graduate in Political Science.
