Dear Editor,
It was my first observation of this ceremonial – the opening session of the PNC Reform 16th Biennial Congress held on August 22, 2009.
I was seated well before 16:45 hours as required by the invitation, only to find that few people, including the party’s leadership seemed to take the deadline seriously. The unapologetically late entrance took little or no account of the punctuality of members of the Diplomatic Corps, and that of disciplined overseas delegates and invitees.
Already there was this nagging feeling of obliviousness of high standards, which the performance of the Co-chairpersons did nothing to dispel. The opportunity lost to showcase competence was re-inforced by the inarticulateness of the speaker who eventually introduced the Leader (all drummed up). One nevertheless looked forward to some excitement from the featured speech.
Over an extended period, that speech meandered through a number of areas:
a) The Founder Leader’s ac-hievements.
b) A repetition of the current administration’s malfunctionings, with accent on the Roger Khan debacle.
c) An analysis of party protests and the rationalisation of the tactics applicable to various situations
d) Vindication of the party’s militancy in parliament.
e) The under-publicised outreach programmes of the party.
f) The culpability of other perceived egocentrics within the party for the imbalances, disaggregation and the cumulative lack of unity.
g) Proclamation of inclusivity – particularly evidenced by the re-admission of a septuagenarian, currently struggling to deforest the local cemetery.
h) The postponed local government elections, and the need for reforming the system.
The last topic was the closest to any indication of the party’s view of the future. In fact there was not an iota of evidence that the party had a vision which embraced substantive policy issues.
No pronouncements were forthcoming on an economy in crisis; climate change in general, and the low carbon development strategy in particular; the future of agriculture and that of the sugar industry; an under-achieving education system; the reverberations of CLICO; the fragility of the justice system; the challenges faced by Caricom; national foreign policy initiatives – an inexhaustive agenda, yet aimed at restoring the confidence of its citizens in governance of the country, and simultaneously respect for Guyana from its regional and international interactors. Not a single indicator of the direction in which the party must be led.
Emerging from what effectively was a pandering to the low expectations of a disproportionately emotional audience, have been reflections on the appropriateness of the party’s organisational structure. Given the extant competitive environment in which the event was staged, there was an arguable case for more than one presentation to be considered by the prospective voters, and consequently for providing a more level playing field of options. Perhaps the reference to ‘primaries’ was a sublimated acknowledgement of the disparity in exposure to the membership and other (invited) stakeholders of messages from other aspirants.
Given also what appears to be becoming an endemic problem of the credibility of the voting system, there might well be need for pause in pursuing the current leadership arrangements vis-à-vis the collegial decision-making effectiveness that can be realised by a team committed to the same goals.
At this juncture there is no declared mechanism for healing the acknowledged fracture in the current organisational structure. Until the latter is effectively addressed any ambition for being an alternative government is indeed chimerical.
The bar is perilously low and desperately needs to be raised.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
