Dear Editor,
The PNCR is about to elect its leader who will most likely become the party’s presidential candidate or the presidential candidate of APNU, assuming that the candidate who wins will continue with the APNU coalition. There are two sides in the PNCR. One side honestly believes it can win the election by itself given that the Indian population has declined from 43% in 2002 to possibly 38% when the government finally releases the census numbers. Then there is Brigadier David Granger who strongly favours multiethnic coalition politics. He has some favourable numbers on his side. The PNCR received 34% of the overall votes in 2006. Under the APNU coalition – led by Mr Granger – the party won 40.8% of the votes in 2011. APNU includes the Guyana Action Party that traditionally pulls Amerindian votes.
Granger has come in for serious attacks from within the PNCR, from well-intentioned analysts like Dr Henry Jeffrey and Mr Christopher Ram, and from some malicious personalities writing with semi-fake pennames in the letter columns and anonymously on the blogs. I have a different interpretation of Granger’s leadership style and I feel he is the best leader to lead a multiethnic coalition for the general election. I would like to make it clear that I support Mr Ram’s position that there ought to be more policy clarity coming out of APNU. I also do not support holding up the Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill. I have explained in previous writing why I feel holding up the Bill is a distraction that allows the PPP to shift blame for the tanking economy on the opposition. And I do agree with Mr Ram that there should be more use of the courts. For example, instead of pushing for a general election the Minister of Finance should be taken to court while the focus ought to be on local government elections at this time.
Mr Granger has taken a lot of heat from all quarters for not bringing out his supporters into the streets like Mr Hoyte did. It is not that he believes street protests are not an essential form of democratic expression. In Guyana street protests require a lot more thought. He possibly understands that if there are protests sponsored by APNU, mainly African Guyanese will turn out. Any mass protests like Hoyte’s must be multiethnic like Rodney’s. The oligarchic private media and the government controlled media will make a point of taking small clips to stereotype African Guyanese for the purpose of promoting the PPP’s race-based ‘don’t split the votes’ election campaign. They will demonize African Guyanese like the Guyana Chronicle editorial did just a few days ago. In addition, we can expect agent provocateurs to create problems and the videos of these to strategically end up on the TV stations controlled by the Jagdeo-backed oligarchs. I just get the impression that street protests will come if the government continues on its present course. When it comes it will be credible and clinical.
Progress was made during the 2011 election. But the country has to deal with a pernicious constitution that prevents post-election alliances. Granger believes that political leaders should be doing bottom house and community meetings with the people from all ethnic backgrounds. Political leaders should be like school teachers educating the people about their rights and how exactly the government’s policies are leading to their underdevelopment. Planning lessons are difficult; much more difficult than knee-jerk reactions and street protests without a credible outcome.
It is simply not true that Granger does not have a political-economic philosophy. Inter-acting with him clearly shows he is a nationalist who strongly supports inclusive democracy. He also articulated this as recently as this May during his televised interview with Ms Tanuja Raghoo of Caribbean Spotlight TV which is also available on YouTube. He is on record on the Yesu Persaud TV programme supporting the independence constitution with the prime minister as head of government. He supports diminishing the power of the president. Local government elections and governance for him would be the method to devolve power to the villages and localities. In terms of his economics, I get the impression he will be eclectic, drawing the best from free market and socialist economics. He understands – and wrote a book on it – the importance of a meritocratic public sector (what heterodox economists call embedded autonomy). He has a second book outlining his views of security as an underpinning for driving economic growth. Essentially his economic views are pragmatic, realistic and sensible.
His position on Linden demonstrates a dimension on his economic insights. Linden is in a depression mainly because aluminium – derived from bauxite – is one of the very few commodities that suffered a price decline during the commodity boom. Therefore, he understands that populism will not solve the problem there. However, winning the election can allow for Linden to be made into a significant other city given that Georgetown will eventually be under water as the ice melts. Finally, Granger led the APNU to reject the terms of the Amaila hydroelectric plant, while not disagreeing with the need to harness hydroelectricity. At close to US$1 billion, the project was over-billed and with past experience (Skeldon sugar factory, Marriott hotel and road projects), the price would have increased even more. This one act saved all Guyanese from inflated external debt and expensive electricity. Unfortunately the AFC did not question this project as it should have.
One of Granger’s styles that appear to befuddle many observers is his ability to be comfortable in his skin. He has shunned ‘big man’ politics. He is not an insecure leader, hence he allows others to propose Bills and motions in parliament. Does this management style warrant criticisms? Do we really want one man to take credit for all the work done by a team? I feel Guyanese will desire this kind of management instead of the egotistical styles the country has suffered from since independence. Being a talk man in public speech does not imply an ability to run the country. Smooth talk is no substitute for technical competence. However, shunning ‘big man’ politics does not mean there is no room for improving the public relations machinery of APNU.
Granger’s personal integrity is acknowledged even by critical commentators like Ram and Mr Freddie Kissoon. One of the massive obstacles to Guyanese national development and job creation is corruption, that strangles legitimate business expansion and foreign investment. Granger also has a reputation as a skilled national security technocrat. That is evidenced among other accomplishments by his tenure lecturing at the National Defense University in Washington, DC. Criminal enterprises like narco-trafficking, money laundering, piracy, and smuggling must be tackled credibly in order to provide the law and order that will enable and encourage remigration and job creation by honest small businesses.
I support Brigadier Granger because I feel he is the best leader to build a multiethnic rainbow coalition at this point. Having said that, I’d like to take the opportunity to congratulate the PNCR for again electing its leader. This is refreshing given that the PPP has stubbornly chosen Stalin’s method of show-of-hands. Regardless of the outcome of the election, the PNCR would be the winner.
Yours faithfully,
Tarron Khemraj
