Dear Editor,
There seems to be an uprising to wake up or remove Mr Robert Corbin. Some said Corbin did not do too badly, given what he was up against; some focused on the failures under his leadership; some demanded accountability and his resignation as Leader of the Opposition if he didn’t perform; others attacked the PNC and the late Desmond Hoyte. There is merit and demerit in the arguments. As the PNC demands accountability from the PPP, so too must Mr Corbin and every leader be asked to be accountable.
If Mr Corbin’s performance is handicapped by his limitations and internal conflicts it compromises his ability to lead effectively. There are instances, independent of internal conflicts and defections, where Mr Corbin’s decisions have raised eyebrows in terms of his leadership and commitment to the PNC. Since he holds the dual offices of party leader and opposition leader − one party driven and other constitutionally driven − the concerns about his performance are legitimate.
Those who voted for the PNC and the parliamentary opposition have a vested interest in what Mr Corbin does. Conflict is natural in politics. Those who have succeeded are masters of human behaviour and the political arena.
Mr Corbin should have made the intellectuals and more experienced party members aware that as leader he will rely on their counsel in driving the programmes of the party and Parliament. It is in his interest not to be intimidated or weak-footed.
The PNC and parliamentary opposition have no known vision for the country. Given the absence of clear guidelines and leadership in the presence of human rights violations, government excesses and economic insecurity, it is natural to turn the spotlight on the alternative. In this case it’s the PNC.
Mr Rampertab suggests the PNC needs overarching democratic reforms and then proceeds to swipe the PNC for its legitimate activism under Mr Hoyte’s leadership (‘The PNC needs overarching democratic reforms more than it needs a change in leadership’ SN 24.12.08).
Democracy is not only one man one vote. Most importantly, democracy is the rule of the majority with the protection of the rights of minorities. These pillars are interlocked, inseparable and necessary. When these fail people protest.
Given that elections are racial censuses and voters have come to believe the Indian dominated PPP would always win, it should not automatically translate into accepting or justifying poor governance and ignoring the human rights of minorities or opposition groups. For the last 16 years this has been standard thought and practice. Inevitably it generates resistance from those who rightfully refuse to accept second-class status. This was Mr Hoyte’s contention and informed his militancy over the years.
The election winner, as the executive government and legislative majority, wants to manage the state’s resources, contributed to by both winners and losers, to the exclusion of the losers. With revenue being centrally collected and re-distributed the oppressed will struggle for their share of inclusion. Had the losers the opportunity to manage their affairs by collecting their taxes and determining spending through their regional or local governments, the current conflict would be markedly different. Since this does not exist it is the opposition’s job to ensure the minorities, losers and marginalised are protected.
Yours faithfully,
Donald Issacs
