Dear Editor,
The more things change the more they remain the same. Indeed it is often said and is clearly applicable today in Guyana. The PNCR is about to become engaged in another long awaited and overdue Congress. After the last Congress during which the late Winston Murray contested the leadership of the PNCR, Mr Robert Corbin invited Vincent Alexander, Winston Murray, Jeffrey Thomas and I to have discussions about the conduct of the process and the concerns about the fairness of the electoral process. What echoed during those meetings was the need for a change in the political culture of the PNCR, deepening the democracy within the organization.
Mr Granger is now contesting the leadership of the PNCR, a post in which he had claimed he had no interest since he was not a politician. This statement was made during the campaign for the election of the PNCR presidential candidate. He was made leader of the group APNU, which contested as a political party.
However, I was stirred into writing this letter after reading the letter by Mr Michael Scotland in the Stabroek News in which he highlights his experience at a meeting with Mr Granger, and he underscored the unwillingness of Mr Granger to become involved in a consultation with the membership of the group. This lack of involvement of the membership of any of our political parties in Guyana is a negative indicator of the willingness to deepen the democracy in our country.
Leaders most of all must have a very clear understanding of the principles of democracy. In one of the reports mention was also made that Mr Granger is head of the Congress Committee and Ms Amna Ally heads the Credentials Committee.
These two members of the PNCR clearly do not understand or appreciate that they should have recused themselves from these positions if they were going to be contesting posts and campaigning for each other. How then can the PNCR transform itself to being more transparent, democratic and accountable if those contesting the leadership do not practise the basic principles of democracy? Maybe Mr Granger knew that he did not have that clarity when he said he was not a politician.
Furthermore, it was Mr Granger who fought against Winston Murray, Aubrey Norton and myself when we sought to have the position of leader and presidential candidate as one. He together with Mr Corbin held one head and insisted that the two positions should be separated. Now Mr Granger has the desire to merge not two roles but three roles. What is most amazing is we have not heard a word from the so-called other nine organizations which comprise the APNU.
Where are the voices of the membership of these organizations?
Are there no concerns of the membership of the WPA? Or is there some other expectation which may be reaped by the leadership of the WPA and other organizations of APNU?
It all seems so undemocratic that the voices of membership of these organizations are not heard, or maybe there is another plan in place by APNU for the PNCR – the real question which can only be answered if the membership of the PNCR votes one way or the other? Will the PNCR survive if Mr Granger wins the leadership? It is now in the hands of the membership and delegates of the PNCR. I hope the process is a healthy one and may their hands be safe hands in safeguarding the democracy of our country.
Yours faithfully,
Richard Van West-Charles