Dear Editor,
People, including large swaths of supporters, are disappointed in the behaviour of all three parties and their leadership. It is noted that the PNC has returned to how it governed during the 1970s and 1980s, not learning any lessons from its misrule during that era, while the AFC has lost its credibility for failing to hold the PNC government accountable in the coalition as it promised during the campaign. And the PPP has not shown that it is willing to join a national unity government or move away from an ideological position that alienates many.
The biggest disappointment for many people, especially in the business community, has been the PPP’s inability (or reluctance) to reform itself and embrace non-party figures that can help it in the next elections.
The party needs to rebuild itself and re-energize itself with fresh, new faces and move away from the old failed Socialist ideas of the past. The public at large, business people, and even party insiders abhor what they describe as the PPP’s stubbornness to transform itself into a modern day mass-based democratic party willing to allow the membership to directly choose its leadership.
It is also criticized for its unwillingness to work closely with others who are not members but who can help it in the next election with the injection of new ideas that attract new supporters.
The behaviour of some in the leadership has not changed in spite of defeats in 2011 and 2015. They learnt no lessons from those setbacks and blame others for their losses, instead of looking at themselves for their political blunders.
They remain arrogant and show little interest in hearing the views of others, and are not interested in the views of others. As an illustration, I tried to engage a ‘leader’ recently at Freedom House. When the guard telephoned him about my presence, he told the guard to tell me he was “not in”. The guard was embarrassed. I tried to engage another figure.
She at first was also “not in”, but changed her mind and told the guard to send me up. While walking the corridor, I walked past the office of the person who told the guard to say he was not in. I waved at him and he waved back, embarrassed. Instead of lying, he could have told the guard he was busy or simply come out and said hello and indicated he was busy; he did neither of those.
He was not interested in hearing what the public thought of him or the party, or listen to ideas on how to make it better. The conversation with the lady was pleasant, and she asked for suggestions on some subject issues. But she also lectured me for my “perceived bias” in many critiques of the PPP. She was not prepared to accept that PPP had made fatal mistakes during its governance.
In another example, some time ago I critiqued the behaviour of the head of a government agency who was not a PPP leader but considered a strong PPP affiliate of party leaders. He sent a message to say he does not care what I think about his behaviour in office because “he is getting his pension”. Conversations with others reveal similar outcomes. So clearly, some who were in the PPP or hired by that party when in office cared about their own financial well-being and not that of the public or even party supporters.
They learnt no lessons about the mistakes they or the party made, and are unwilling to reform. And that is the reason for their downfall and why people complain about them till this day. Arrogance will also be the downfall of the PNC and AFC if they don’t heed the cries of the public and engage them. Unlike most in the cabinet, Moses Nagamootoo makes himself available to engage the public, including those who did not support him.
The PPP needs an extraordinary party Congress this weekend. The PPP must concede that it made errors while in office and that it has learned its lesson and is now willing to build a broad front of workers, farmers and business people, and engage parties.
The Congress must show the party as united. There should not be a fight for leadership and control of the party, but to end central or executive committee dominance and give power to its members, rather than delegates, to choose executives and the presidential nominee.
No one person or a group of central figures should hold sway over the party or its members. Traditional supporters will not accept that principle of one person or group dominance in the post Jagan era – democratize and share power.
The PPP needs new blood at the helm; those sitting in the central committee over the last three decades should give way to young Turks to take the party forward. The party must also signal that it is willing to work with other political parties and business leaders for a better country, and that its policy will not be dictated primarily by socialist ideology.
It must strengthen the Civic component welcoming well-known persons from the business community like Dr Peter Ramsaroop and Ms Rhyaan Shah, and prominent figures from the diaspora like Dr Baytoram Ramharack and Anand Boodram.
Unless the party reforms and becomes more democratic in its operations and structure, it will not attract the forces necessary to give it a chance at the next election.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
