Dear Editor,
Mr Corbin has consistently being making certain statements from the time Team Alexander indicated to him their intention to support a candidate for Leader of the party during the 2007 congress. One of those statements is that Team Alexander (TA) was only interested in power because some of the members also challenged Mr Hoyte. No member of Team Alexander ever challenged Mr Hoyte at a congress of the party. However, there can be nothing wrong with such a challenge in a democracy. This claim therefore exposes the anti-democratic nature of those who make it. Indeed calls were made at different times and by different persons for Mr Hoyte to step down. How that was dealt with in the first instance saw the party suffering from a significant fall out and subsequently a huge defeat at local government elections in Georgetown. Never again did Hoyte deal with such calls in that manner. He treated them as ‘par for the course’ and retained the position of Leader of the party through electoral means until his demise.
Another statement Mr Corbin has been peddling is that the congress mandated the Central Executive Committee to bring disciplinary charges against TA. The fact is that Mr Corbin in his various public utterances leading up to and during the congress pushed for disciplinary action. In his address to the congress Mr Corbin said: “It is my view that what has transpired in our party over the last three months is totally unacceptable. If it were not so close to this congress I would have definitely taken a different course of action, but we agreed that since congress was so close, then you the members must give clear directions on how you expect your leaders to behave. Democracy or not, no party interested in cohesion could tolerate the kind of indiscipline which was recently displayed. Do you agree with me?” It was clear that Mr Corbin had already pronounced the members of TA guilty of indiscipline before they were even charged. It is clear that Mr Corbin used his position as Leader to chart the course for disciplinary action but prefers to be a Pontius Pilate from time to time.
Mr Corbin has been contending that Mr Alexander ran against him on three occasions and lost. That is not the case. Mr Alexander was nominated to run for the same position as Mr Corbin on many occasions but declined to do so except on one occasion when Mr Corbin reneged on the agreement that he would not contest, thus allowing Mr Murray to assume the chairmanship. I believe, however, that members by consistently nominating Mr Alexander for various leadership positions demonstrated recognition of his leadership ability. The fact is that Mr Alexander always accepted the decision of the members and continued to work along with his colleagues, including Mr Corbin. That shows that he was not only interested in leading (and not necessarily in power) but in the growth and development of the party.
Mr Corbin has also been touting that the party is open to members challenging for office. The former National Chairman of the GYSM, Ms Chiyedza James however had a different experience. On the eve of the GYSM congress in 2006 she was asked to hand over all party properties. Ms James was informed that an allegation of misconduct had been levelled against her for engaging in anti-party activities. On the second day of congress during the election for chairman of the GYSM, Ms James got a taste of just how democratic the party was. Although she was nominated for chairman, her name was nowhere to be found on the ballot paper as a candidate. Ms James was never charged for any of those allegations; instead she was subsequently charged for writing letters in the papers.
In the end the Disciplinary Committee could not find sufficient evidence to support the charge. Was that natural justice or democracy at work?
Mr Corbin negotiated with President Jagdeo to have the recall legislation tabled in parliament and reneged on the agreement to use the PPP’s desire for such legislation to advance other measures that would have been beneficial to his constituents.
Mr Corbin, it’s time for us to put this issue behind us and start the discourse of who will succeed you when you do the decent thing and resign in an effort to bring back respect to the office you occupy, and vitality to the party.
Yours faithfully,
Julianne Gaul