‘I don’t feel the PNC, at present, needs to apologise for anything. What it needs to do is to have the past investigated and where things are proven to be wrong or illegal or as you describe them as excesses, well, let an inquiry speak’
Retired Brigadier David Granger believes that the main opposition PNCR can win an election under the current electoral system.
“Yes we can—it sounds corny—but we can win, yes,” he told Stabroek News in an interview on Thursday, explaining that the success would rest on the party’s appeal to the electorate (and) on the promise of a safer society where everyone can go about their daily lives without the threat of criminal violence. “I think the PNC can deliver that and I think that is the type of society that people want. And people who want that society, I think, they would want to vote for the PNC,” he added.
Granger’s declaration of interest in being the PNCR’s presidential candidate coincides with work by the party to formalise a broad coalition along with other opposition parties and civic groups to contest the election. He noted that with less than ten months to go before the elections, it is likely that the party could go into the election on its own. He, however, reiterated the PNCR’s commitment to coalitions and cited as examples its association with the Reform component-which has since been formally integrated into the party-and the 1-Guyana movement, with which it contested the last election. Granger added that if he were to win the candidacy, he would be open to approaches by other parties that are interested in making the country a better place to live.
He said the PNCR would continue to be a national party, which appeals to all ethnicities in the country. He pointed out that largely in the past the party has attracted support from the working-class and, with innovations by late former President Desmond Hoyte, the business-class as well. “So, it’s a national party and I believe it can attract national support,” he said. He pointed out that while the majority of votes have come from the Afro-Guyanese group, persons have committed to the party for ideological, geographical and even selfish reasons. “But I’m not sure that purely ethnic parties can survive in Guyana,” he said, noting that such ventures have failed in the past. He said the parties which last are those which are inclusive.
He added that while the architecture for shared governance has not been put in place, it would be a political priority to reach out to other groups to form an administration which shares power. “I would like to see a Cabinet with people who are not necessarily PNC but who can contribute to the objective of making the country a safe place to live in,” he said. “We must get the best Guyanese. We must—I think—abandon the practice of ensuring that every single diplomat must be a sort of party member or every single head of a corporation must be of one ethnicity. We are talking about meritocracy. I think Guyana needs to put people in positions of authority who can perform their jobs and who deserve to be put there.”
Granger has emphasised his interest in uniting the party, noting that there has been some division. Under party leader Robert Corbin, the PNCR has seen the departure of several popular leaders, including Raphael Trotman who went on to co-found the Alliance For Change, which won give seats at the last elections. Former Vice-Chairman Vincent Alexander and several supporters also left the party in the fallout of an aborted challenge to Corbin’s leadership. The only representatives of the Reform and 1-Guyana movement currently within the ranks of the PNCR are party vice-chairman Dr. George Norton and MP Keith Scott of the National Front Alliance. Last year, former Reform members, including co-founders Stanley Ming and Artie Ricknauth, indicated that they would be willing to return to work with the party under the leadership of Winston Murray, who was at the time contesting for the party leadership. Murray, whose campaign was unsuccessful, has been receiving support to be the party’s presidential candidate.
Healing the divide
There has been previous interest in Granger’s candidacy but he declined, having felt that the party had a sufficient cadre of leaders who were capable of leading it into elections. “But I think it is true to say that there has been some division and I see my role as being someone who can unite the party and someone who can unite the country,” he said. “I think if the party is going to fulfil the objectives and satisfy the interests of its constituents, there must be a greater degree of unity and I think I can contribute to both national and internal party unity. And so, in that regard, this is an opportune time for me to be involved in a way that I have never been involved before,” he added.
Granger admitted that the both the Reform and 1-Guyana elements “would have to be re-approached and rebuilt.” He noted the drift from the party by persons once associated with the Reform component and drew a parallel with the Civic component of the PPP. “I think one of my tasks would be to re-engage with the Reform and 1-G, and try to rebuild them into strong, supporting arms of the party,” he explained.
He noted that the past contests for party leadership have fomented “some divisions,” with the outcomes leading former members to disassociate themselves from the party. “But I think they are still willing to contribute and I believe that I am a strong enough leader, a strong enough person to bring those persons into the fold. And that will be one of my primary objectives if I am selected as the candidate,” he said, adding that he is willing to meet with former members on what it would take to secure their return. He added, “There is a body of party supporters who are willing to come back.”
The mass of the party, according to Granger, remains quite solid despite disunity wrought by a few leaders competing for office. As a result, he said the priority in the party would be galvanizing membership to participate fully in the next election so that the goals of giving ordinary people a better life can be accomplished. He noted that there is a significant amount of poverty, school dropouts and unemployment in the country. “These are issues which need to be articulated and resolved at election time,” he said. “Those are the issues which I feel that the members of the party consider burning and I don’t think it’s a burning issue whether candidate ‘x’ or candidate ‘y.’”
Murray supporter Richard Van West-Charles has said that the party’s presidential candidate should not be separate from its leader, saying such a move would confuse supporters. He also said that changes would have to be made to the party’s constitution in order to facilitate such a separation.
But Granger said the party has its own internal procedures and it is happy with the separation of the leader and the candidate. “I am prepared to work within that framework and I do not believe that it is necessarily dysfunctional,” he said, noting the potential danger in having a presidential candidate who is only accountable to himself. “Under the present system, he is accountable to the central executive and the leader; not the leader as a person but the leader as a member of one of the party organs.” He said it is “a good thing” to have a group that would “hold-the-hand” of the candidate and identify its policies, particularly since it is the party that would be accountable to its constituents. He added that as he understood the party’s rules, someone would be designated as the head of the list and that person would be the candidate. “Whether the party wants to impose control on the candidate, that is another matter, but constitutionally, the person who is designated as presidential candidate is responsible for the list and the constitution deals with the list, not the General Council or anything else,” he said.
Additionally, following last year’s Biennial Congress, Van West-Charles charged that the electoral process was “fraudulent,” from membership registration to voting. He contended that the party was “hijacked through an illegal process by personal agendas” once again and he submitted a report of irregularities that affected the results.
Granger, when asked about the increasing public criticisms of party elections, said that people go to the press to ventilate their side in hopes of gaining an advantage. In some instances, however, he said it may not have anything to do with the truth. Further, he noted that attorney Joseph Harmon, the Returning Officer for the Congress elections, had certified that they were fairly conducted. He also noted Murray had conceded that Corbin had won. “So, I don’t see beyond those people, the Returning Officer and the defeated contestant, that new evidence has been advanced, I don’t know that there is any truth to what Dr. Van West-Charles said,” he added. “So, it doesn’t worry me because I am satisfied that the internal procedures in the party—the registration of voters, of bona fide party members, the voting process, the counting of votes—was all above board, as far as the Returning Officer was concerned.”
Inexperience
Granger described himself as a professional and not a politician but said that he did not see a dividing line between the two fields. “I prefer to work for national goals in the professional field,” he explained.
He added that there must be a start and pointed to Winston Churchill becoming British Prime Minister at the age of 65 and leading it successfully through World War II. He also drew attention to the more recent success of Barack Obama in securing the US Presidency despite having very little political experience. “There is no way of gaining presidential experience, except in the presidency,” Granger said. “I do believe that the rigours and the responsibilities of command of the defence force between 1979 and 1990 were such that would prepare me to carry out these governmental functions.” He also emphasised that he would not be alone; rather, he would part of a team that would include specialists in areas such as economics, sociology, health, and public security. “My job is to lead that team [and] not to know everything about everything. But to bring out the talents of the various people who would be working with me.” He further said that there would be no point joining the race unless he intended to win and he was confident that he had the knowledge and capabilities to do so.
Asked about the national conditions favourable to his candidacy, Granger argued that over the last decade the country has seen a “mauling” in the area of public security, resulting in continued emigration, loss of investment, brain drain and enormous apprehension among young people and the professional classes. “Those negative trends need to be brought to an end and I together with a team would have the ability to create a safer environment, so that people who would want stay [and] people would want to come back, people would want to invest and people would want Guyana to flourish again,” he said.
According to him, public security is the foundation upon which economic stability and, in particular, investment confidence rest. He emphasised one of the most important functions of government is to create a safe environment for the other branches of society. In this regard, he said there is a need to cut down the gun crimes, crime in ‘E and F’ Divisions, and piracy.
“Once that happens, we would see the start of people coming out of school staying, investors coming in and the brain drain would be reversed and retirees would want to settle,” he explained. “Right now, there is still too much flight and I believe that flight from Guyana has been caused by the lack of public security.”
Errors
The PNCR has been out of office for almost two decades but has had to contend with a legacy that includes charges of dictatorial governance, electoral fraud and human rights abuses. Party members have wrestled with the question of whether the party needs to apologise for past mistakes when considering the question of widening its support base, with some in favour and a majority opposed.
Notably, Trotman, while a member of the party, said there needed to be an acceptance of responsibility by all sides and he suggested that such a gesture should include the PNCR apologising for its excesses of its time in government.
Alexander, meanwhile, has argued that all parties–and the PNCR and the PPP in particular–have to bear some responsibility for what happened to Guyana, saying while the question of blame is one that is relevant, it should not be limited to one party. Van West-Charles has admitted that the PNC has made mistakes and some members may have done wrong in the past, and that the party has to take the blame, apologise as a principle and move forward. But he emphasised the need for an evidenced-based approach to the party’s time in government. Also, he said consideration needed to be given to the political context in which the party operated, including pressures brought to bear by the Cold War and domestic attempts to sabotage the economy.
Granger, linked to the PNC administration by virtue of his military service, noted that there were “errors” by both the PPP and the PNC. “I don’t feel the PNC, at present, needs to apologise for anything. What it needs to do is to have the past investigated and where things are proven to be wrong or illegal or as you describe them as excesses, well, let an inquiry speak,” he said. “I don’t know that governments go around apologising for every single error that they made. As far as what you describe as excesses are concerned, I think we must move away from anecdote and if there is evidence that wrong has been done these things could be investigated.”
He noted the ruling that the 1997 election of late former President Janet Jagan was “unlawful” and he questioned who would apologise for it.
He also questioned who would apologise for the assassination of Agriculture Minister Satyadeow Sawh and the massacres at Lusignan, Bartica and Lindo Creek. “So, if we go into the business of apologies, you know, let’s go the whole hog,” he said. “Let us look at the performance of the administrations from 1957 to 1964, 1964 to 1992, [and] 1992 to the present day. But I don’t know if that is going to be helpful. At least on one occasion, Mr. Jagdeo said we need to have a ‘mother of all inquiries.’ Well, let us have a mother of all inquiries. Let us put these ghosts to rest.” He added that the truth cannot be had without an inquiry and argued that there is no point urging an apology on an anecdotal basis. Granger noted historian Clem Seecharan’s writings on late former President Cheddi Jagan and he questioned whether the PPP would have to apologise for its activities at that time. “I really think we would be going into a historical minefield if we do that sort of thing, if we demand apologies” he said. In the event that the public-at-large is convinced that an investigation would bring about “national unity” or “national healing,” and “move the country forward,” we should proceed. “Let us do it, if you feel strong that that [the past] is a stumbling block,” he said. Asked if he was convinced it was, he said, “I am convinced that certain events over the last ten years should be investigated because we don’t know the reason that they occurred. I’d like to investigate the killing of Minister Sawh. I’d like to investigate the Lindo Creek matter. I’d like to investigate all the massacres we’ve had. The Cummings Lodge massacre….” He emphasised the importance of a strong demand by the public for an inquiry.
“I think we need to have a culture of investigating when things go wrong, whether its elections, whether its massacres, whether it is fraud, or whether it’s the export of dolphins, whatever it is,” he said, adding that it is how both governments and people learn. Further, he urged the appointment of an Ombudsman and establishment of the Public Service Appellate Tribunal, noting the need for institutions that are essential to the good running of the country.
In this vein, he also cited the need to adhere to the sanctity of the Judiciary and ensure the integrity of the National Assembly and the police force. “What we need to be talking about is the re-establishment of these institutions, because these are the pillars on which the state is founded.
How long have we had an acting Chancellor and an acting Chief Justice? Something has got to be wrong.”
