The PNCR congress has come and gone, but the major issues that faced the party, some of which arose at the congress itself, will have repercussions for years to come. Going into the congress, the major problem for the PNCR was the disconnect that has developed between the expectations of those who brought Mr. Granger to its leadership and the actual reality of his leadership.
APNU has not been able to transmit a liberating vision to its supporters or manage its relationships with them in an appropriate fashion. As this article was being completed last Sunday, failure in the second area broke into open revolt at the congress itself.
Many of those who supported Mr. Granger’s 2010 leadership bid did so because they believed that, being a military man, he would have been able to provide the more militant leadership that they saw as necessary at that historical juncture. These expectations have been dashed as Mr. Granger has instead opted for an essential parliamentary strategy.
This approach rests on the belief that if APNU is to receive political or even financial support from non-traditional supporters it needs to at least suspend extra-parliamentary activities. I have consistently questioned this way of thinking but this aside; it appears to me that at the operational level the party’s actions severely limit this strategy.
Over decades, the PPP has instilled in its traditional voters a few basic beliefs about the PNC: the party and its supporters are thugs and bullies, prone to high-handedness and the rigging of elections.
As if oblivious of this fact and the impact it could have on its goal of winning non-traditional support, we have been presented with an extremely acrimonious dispute surrounding the suspension of Ms. Vanessa Kissoon, the imposition of a coordinator in Linden and the manipulation of the delegates from that community that could only serve to reinforce the view that the PNCR should not be trusted with power.
Furthermore, while recognizing the persistent oligarchic influence in all our political parties, the PNCR took the bold step of having open leadership elections. Yet it did so with a mindset that wanted the propaganda value of openness while still maintaining control of the outcome of the electoral process.
History has also taught us that the greater openness there is the less exclusion there must be, if only because opposing forces will most likely have enough support to thwart your agenda. The PNCR’s leadership wanted to have their cake and eat it, and as a result, events occurred at its congress that must have a damaging effect upon its parliamentary strategy.
To all of this must be added the proposed no-confidence motion of the AFC, which pushes the strategy that focuses on parliament to its limit, and again APNU is being found wanting.
It may well be, as some believe, that the AFC, having recognised the risk-averse nature of APNU, has decided to play political brinksmanship in the hope that APNU will not support the motion, that there will be no elections and that it will benefit from the fallout of APNU supporters. This, of course, in no way means that APNU does not have to make a credible response.
For months on end, the entire opposition has been accusing the PPP/C of violating the constitution in various ways. Where the holding of local government elections is concerned, it has been claiming that the constitutional requirement to hold those elections cannot await the political convenience of the PPP/C or anyone else.
How different is APNU from the PPP, when having been given the clear chance to put a stop to a regime that is violating the constitution, it meanders and even before the last congress ruckus, appears looking for an opening to scram! Is it not suggesting that upholding the constitution is also secondary to its own political fortunes? Indeed, in this respect, the political fallout at the congress might be considered something of a godsend for it provides a near perfect cover for rejecting the no-confidence approach!
The question now arises: what are we to make of APNU’s general political strategy? Not only is it refusing to take to the barricades against the PPP for violating the constitution; when it considers its electoral interest is at stake, it puts a brake on even its parliamentary approach! Added to these, its own manner of doing business severely compromises its chosen path!
As for the party’s vision, if anyone had asked me immediately before Mr. Granger’s congress speech what was his ideological orientation in so far as it relates to actual governance, I would have said that it appears to be based on a loose notion of inclusive democracy as stated in the constitution. As to what this commitment actually means I have no idea and have been saying for some months that Mr. Granger needs to provide some greater details.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
