Dear Editor,
The 16th Biennial Congress of the People’s National Congress will be held from August 21 to 23, 2009. It is an opportunity for the PNCR to regain the credibility that was so seriously damaged after the last congress.
Dr Richard Van West Charles has indicated an interest in contesting for the leadership position of the party. In response I expected the party leadership to ensure a transparent and credible electoral process. I expected people like Messrs Aubrey Norton, Lance Carberry, Aubrey Armstrong and Clarissa Riehl to insist that the distribution of membership forms and nomination forms be impartially handled. I expected this because I know that these people are aware that another tainted electoral process will do irreparable damage to the PNCR.
In Georgetown, anyone who approaches the district office to uplift renewal forms on behalf of their group is asked to wait until a call is made to Congress Place for permission to deliver the forms. Once permission is granted the person then receives twelve forms; twelve is the minimum number of persons required for a group.
Therefore if a group has thirty members the group chairman is required to make three trips to the district office for his entire group membership to be renewed. However, some people are given many forms.
In addition there are myriad examples of where some PNCR officials seem to be acting to undermine the democratic process. For instance: During questioning by a senior official, one group chairman mentioned a particular member’s name. He was promptly told that he should not involve that member in his group since the member is not on “their” side. Party officials should not be concerned with sides.
A GYSM group chairman was told that permission had to be sought from a senior official before any forms could be issued to her group because she openly spoke out against Mr Corbin.
Various officials of the PNCR have extended the party offices to their cars and have been driving around with the membership forms instead of making them available at offices where they can be uplifted. Efforts by some people to contact them by telephone are futile, and so these people cannot easily obtain forms.
One PNCR official has given members strange reasons why they must support Mr Corbin. According to the official the PNCR cannot win any election so it makes no sense to remove the leader to improve the party’s electoral chances. This is preposterous. I do not agree that the PNCR cannot win, but I do know it cannot win with Mr Corbin and company. Therefore I see no reason why I must sacrifice my self interest to that of Mr Corbin and others. I want my party to be in office and I want it to represent me forcefully. So if it is that Corbin and his team have accepted that they are not up to the task, I must ask them to go home.
The 2011 election is a watershed election for the PNCR. In 2006 it lost 20% of the seats it held in the parliament – all to the AFC. If the AFC gains another five of the PNCR seats in 2011 it would acquire a critical mass that would make it the PNCR’s electoral equal. This situation can set the PNCR into free-fall at future elections. What Mr Corbin and others seem not to recognize is that the future of the PNCR is at stake. But I must ask the question, do they care?
Yours faithfully,
Shellon Browne
