Dear Editor,
In recent days there were some incisive commentaries in the local media on David Granger’s effort to become the Leader of the PNCR. Both Peeping Tom (KN, July) 8 and E B John (‘The leadership of APNU should not be dissolved into the leadership of the PNCR’ SN, July, 14) pointed to the jeopardy for the APNU if David Granger becomes PNCR Leader, while Michael Scotland (‘There is a conflict of interest in the Granger team’ SN, July 18) addressed some worrying but fundamental indicators of the motivation behind Mr Granger’s challenge to become the Leader of the PNCR.
Peeping Tom argued that “… It makes practical sense for there to be one leader of the PNCR and another for APNU.” His reasoning is that APNU will assume an overt PNCR image that is likely to turn off potential partners who may be afraid of being “ …marginalized by the overwhelming electoral, financial and membership superiority enjoyed by the PNCR.” He argued that if Mr Granger becomes the Leader of the PNCR he must cede the chairmanship of the APNU to Rupert Roopnaraine of the WPA.
Mr John pointed to prospective conflict of interest if Mr Granger becomes Leader of the PNCR. He too queried “why and how then it is to be presumed that the future leader of APNU must reside only in the PNCR.”
If the PNCR sees, as it should, some political capital in holding the chairmanship of APNU, then by now it should be concerned about the consequences if Mr Granger becomes the leader of the party. The election of David Granger as Leader of the PNCR would, at a minimum, trigger a public debate on whether the PNCR should continue as chairman of APNU. Such a debate, I believe, will affect the internal harmonious working relationship within APNU and damage the credentials of the PNCR as a party truly committed to a shared governance/National Unity Government arrangement.
Any Leader of the PNCR who doubles as Chairman of APNU would have difficulties defining the boundaries of what is PNCR and what is APNU; where to walk with Basil Williams and where to walk with Dr David Hinds; how to go into the regions to rebuild the party structure and win support for the PNCR without partners in APNU concluding that the chairman is using the grouping’s goodwill for the PNCR’s benefit and demanding to be involved.
Of even greater concern is how this will affect the rebuilding efforts of the PNCR.
The fact is, the PNCR will suffer enormous damage with a half-hearted, half-committed leader who needs the tacit approval of APNU partners to do party work. It must be recalled that the partners in APNU are the PNCR’s competitors, even if that competition is currently only for space and influence in the partnership.
The only guarantee the PNCR has of maintaining and expanding the coalition and at the same time maintaining its space and level of influence is to rebuild and reorganize its base. This can only be achieved through sustained work driven by the leader of the party.
The separation of the offices of party leader and leader of the opposition presents the PNCR with a unique opportunity to truly rebuild its base, assert itself politically and lead the next government. Making David Granger party leader would squander this opportunity.
Michael Scotland’s report on David Granger’s meeting in Bagotville should cause all PNCR delegates to sit up and take note. Scotland reported that Mr Granger turned up with an APNU entourage including YCT members, shared APNU thank you cards, did not make a case as to what his plans are for the PNCR if he becomes leader, but merely informed members that it is his right to be leader and then he left after taking one question. Now Mr Granger might be politically inexperienced but he is not stupid. When he turns up at PNCR meetings in a blaze of APNU glory thanking PNCR election workers for their vote he is conveying that he is contesting for PNCR Leader on an APNU platform, and does not recognize the invaluable role of PNCR campaign workers. His refusal to answer questions demonstrates contempt for members and seems to suggest that he was not there seeking their support but merely to inform them that some higher power has ordained him party leader. It is not surprising that one young lady, commenting on her support for Mr Granger on John Adams MP Facebook Page, stated that “PNCR time done …Is APNU time now.”
When I listened to David Granger’s address to the original New York No1 PNCR group, I noted his failure to provide a vision for the PNCR and his focus on strengthening APNU. His statement that “… What’s good for the PNCR is good for APNU…” caused me to suspect that Mr Granger’s bid to be Leader of the PNCR had nothing to do with the PNCR but rather is an effort to enhance APNU. Michael Scotland confirmed my suspicions. Taking YCT – a grouping that publicly said it not aligned to the PNCR – as part of his delegation to Bagotville is a loud statement that APNU is on a march to colonize the PNCR. PNCR Central Committee and General Council could then be reduced to rubber-stamping APNU decisions.
PNCR delegates hold the future of the party in their hands.
Yours faithfully,
James K McAllister
