It is not uncommon for instances of internal bickering to arise within political parties in Guyana though, in the final analysis, those rarely if ever escalate into anything that shakes their foundations, since, in the heat of whatever those differences might be, there usually exists a singular sense of purpose embedded in the deeply polarizing nature of Guyanese politics. The issues arise, persist for a while only to sneak back into the same polarizing spaces from whence they came. That said, the seeming differences within the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), that appear to derive from the issue of Party leadership would appear to be sufficiently boisterous, as to cause them to run the risk of compromising that collective sense of purpose – particularly since at the national level it is still on the back foot from the attempted rigging of the 2020 general elections. Outside observers of the present leadership brouhaha have already been making the point that, as we say in Guyana, the Party, at this juncture, has ‘bigger fishes to fry.’
Where such differences obtain, moreover, they are overcome only at that point when the ‘warring factions’ become seized of a sense of what one might call the ‘greater good,’ that is, arriving at a ‘we’re-all-in-the-same-boat’ circumstance that allows for a collective awareness of a ‘singular-ness’ of purpose. Being in the best possible shape to face the electorate when that time comes, one feels, must supersede internal differences (like leadership challenges) that, not infrequently, arise within political parties. Whether such regulatory mechanisms that control the order of priorities do not exist or appear not to exist, the wider dilemma for the PNCR becomes far no less troubling than the matter of who leads. More than that, in the context of the presumed objective of winning political office, it is the constituency that extends beyond the party itself that counts. Once the image of Forbes Burnham, as a colossus in his capacity as the PNC’s ‘Comrade Leader’ had ended with his passing, each of his successors, to varying degrees and for various reasons, had at one time or another, been or appeared to have been vulnerable to internal leadership challenges. It is now the same with Mr. Aubrey Norton.
There are those who would argue that Mr. Norton’s eventual emergence as Party Leader was far from undeserving. They would argue that protracted and steadfast commitment to a cause has to count for something when the issue of ‘who leads’ arises. Taking account of the fact that choices are rarely, if ever, attended by unanimity in the political arena, Mr. Norton has had to endure his detractors. Those persons who know him well, either at a personal level or as a practicing politician, will know him to be a vigorous intellectual jouster, whatever the issue and almost always an unyielding advocate of the positions he holds. That is not always a universally admired attitude in him though, if indeed Mr. Norton is unyielding in the articulation of his points of view, there are those who would see that disposition, in the discipline of politics, as a virtue rather than a weakness. If there were some amongst the members and supporters of the PNCR who did not favour Mr. Norton for the leadership of the Party, in the first instance, they have, in one way or another, expressed their views on his leadership since his election to office a shade over three years ago.
Mr. Norton, one feels, is unlikely to say that the emergence of detractors who may have surfaced either before or after he became Party Leader, would have shocked him. He would have had to take those in his stride and not allow himself to become distracted from the responsibilities that attend his undertaking. For reasons that must be painfully obvious to political observers, the most interesting public criticism that Mr. Norton has had to face so far in the process of seeking to return to office, has been the recent outburst unleashed by Amna Ally, one of the PNCR’s longest serving political operatives, that had to do with what she perceives to be his position on the issue of race. For obvious reasons, the former Cabinet Minister in the Granger Administration’s reference to what she appears to regard as Mr. Norton’s racial ‘outlook’ has become controversial in the sense that the remark and its wider implications may well transcend the upcoming PNCR leadership elections.
If there may have been others who had felt that they too were qualified to lead the PNCR, the Party made a choice which appeared to be based on considerations that had to do with a combination of ‘seniority’ and political experience. That said, those who know Mr. Norton well would also undoubtedly vouch for both his innate belief in the PNCR and what it stands for as criteria for seeing himself as deserving of his leadership of the Party. Such considerations as appeared to be embedded in the minds of Mr. Norton’s supporters in his ‘tilt’ at the leadership of the PNCR appeared to be rooted, for the most part, in considerations of seniority. They also appear to revolve around considerations that had to do with his historical loyalty. In politics, there is nothing wrong with the credentials that dwell in those criteria. Up to this time, those positions still appear to persist in Mr. Norton’s political psyche which is why it has sometimes been said of him that he sometimes sees himself as the ‘maximum’ leader, a term that had been attached to two former Presidents of Guyana, Forbes Burnham in another era, and, more recently, Bharrat Jagdeo, the latter now restrained by the dictates of the country’s Constitution from further ‘repeating’ as the country’s Chief Executive. That said, Jagdeo is felt to have succeeded in circumventing the constitutional constraints by finding avenues through which to function as primus inter pares in PPP/C political administrations that went beyond his own presidency.
The arguments for and against Mr. Norton’s leadership of the PNCR appeared to have their roots in what one might call dispositional considerations. Mr Norton – while his supporters say that in his capacity as Leader of the PNCR he has cultivated a ‘cooler head’ – has not been known, historically, to back away from vigorous debate on politics and some matters to do with international relations. Those who know him well would also attest to his seeming unending preparedness to be insistent about the merit of his own ideas, a propensity that his critics assert amount to an unshakable belief in the rightness of his own point-of-view. This has not made him universally popular.
There can be no question than that, as a political party, the PNCR’s present following includes both doctrinaire, card-bearing members of the Party as well as longstanding supporters who are probably unlikely to recognize a Party Card if it were to fall on their heads but who have never given their vote to another Party. It is, incidentally, the same with the People’s Progressive Party. Here, support has been historical, even hereditary and seemingly unlikely ever to go any other way. For that section of the electorate, loosely described as Party ‘loyalists’, those who lead are not central to where they cast their votes. It is their historical connection to the party itself that counts. If it is difficult to predict just where the fallout from the forthcoming leadership elections will take the PNCR – and here it has to be said that there is a considerable likelihood of a certain level of distracting fallout – whichever of the two known candidates is elected to the office of Party Leader. The critical question, here, has to do with whether and how quickly the Party can put its leadership episode behind it to the point where it can, in good time, place itself in a circumstance that allows for a meaningful tilt at general elections, whenever those are held. Whoever emerges as Party leader after the next poll, it is this, one feels, that the PNCR must see as its end game.
