Dear Editor,
I wish to respond to the guest editorial (SN, 3.2.07) ‘The PNC at 50.’ First let me state that I agree fully with the facts stated in the editorial; however, I disagree with the final analysis made from the facts. The poor quality of PNCR parliamentarians is not due to a crisis in the PNCR. The PNCR has in its pool Messrs Vincent Alexander, Deryck Bernard, Joseph Hamilton, Ivor Allen, Dalgleish Joseph, Sherwood Lowe and Ms Cheryl Sampson, all of whom were denied the opportunity to represent the party in the parliament. All of these are very good debaters who can speak on a wide variety of issues in the parliament.
From what I have read in the media, the Guyana Youth and Student Movement (GYSM) youth arm of the PNCR is grumbling loudly because the leadership of the PNCR is very unprincipled in its dealings with the youth arm.
Mr Corbin failed to appoint any of its members to the National Assembly. From what I have been told Mr Corbin fuels disunity among the youth membership and is currently organizing a parallel youth movement. It is also claimed that in an effort to silence the GYSM for speaking out against these ills an attempt was made at the PNCR’s last General Council to disband the GYSM, however strong resilience from those young people caused a change in plans. This is not a mid-life crisis but it is a demonstration that the young people of the party have strong characters. This in my view is healthy behaviour from young people.
I would not conclude that the PNCR is in a mid-life crisis. From my vantage point what I see is a party being led by a leader whose only concern is himself and he is prepared to do whatever is necessary to preserve hi2mself as leader of the PNCR, even if it means sacrificing the general good of the PNCR. This can become a crisis if the PNCR members do not act quickly in its interest.
As a young person if I do not see any positive moves in the PNCR, I can assure Mr Corbin and friends that they will not get my vote in 2011.
Yours faithfully,
Shondell Browne
