– stalwarts, stakeholders say

The allegations of fraud at the recent PNCR Georgetown District Conference polls have lent force to the case for more transparency in the party’s internal polling, which current and former party members say is crucial to its credibility as a viable alternative to the current administration.

The claims of fraud by party executive and MP Aubrey Norton, who lost the chairmanship of the Georgetown District Confer-ence, have also brought the voting process into sharp focus in the run-up to the upcoming Biennial Congress, due to be held next month.

At the end of chaotic and contentious polling last Sunday, party co-chair Volda Lawrence trumped Norton, having received 220 votes to his 96 votes. But by the time the results of the election were announced, he and most of his supporters had left Congress Place, Sophia labelling the election a fraud and claiming that party leader Robert Corbin was seeking to use the outcome to retain the office of party leader. Among Norton’s claims were that there was no roll call and that some voters were given more than one ballot paper. Also, they said that there were more ballot papers than people.

The party yesterday dismissed the allegations over the voting at the conference as baseless, with General Secretary Oscar Clarke saying that no formal complaints had been made to substantiate any of the claims over the integrity of the process (See story on page 9). Clarke says that if there are reports that show systemic problems, the party could look at them to see where there could be improvements. “We, however, will be looking very carefully at everything that comes out to ascertain we have a foolproof system,” he noted, adding that for last week’s process every step was taken to ensure there was no irregularity. “But… there are always people who would like to see some problems for whatever reason,” he added, saying that it was also an issue at national polls.

Prospective leadership challenger Dr Richard Van West-Charles, who was present at Sunday’s District Conference poll, told Stabroek News briefly that as the party prepared for the upcoming Biennial Congress transparency was an even more pressing issue, which he said “cannot be ignored” and “must be addressed.”

“The strength of our internal democracy belies our strength and performance at the upcoming local government and national elections,” he said, while declaring, “This matter is do or die.”

He has already expressed dissatisfaction with the transparency of the party’s internal electoral processes in recent interviews.

According to him, as an institution the party has to ensure that its systems are efficient and effective, particularly given the need to ensure that there is transparency in the process. He said that the party’s election process had to be fair, just and transparent to both the membership and the public. “Free and fair polls are critical issues and you can’t go to the [electorate] with question marks about your own internal process,” he said.
Credibility

Party stalwart Donald Ainsworth said transparency was key to establishing the party’s credibility as an alternative government. “If the PNCR is to be a viable alternative to the ruling PPP/C government, then there is work to be done in developing a culture of transparency and accountability in the managing of its affairs,” said Ainsworth, adding, “We have to demonstrate in practical ways that we are servants of the people.”

According to him, the Georgetown District Conference could be seen as a trial run for the congress, and he surmised that current party leader Corbin could be fearful of a successful challenge by Van West Charles.

The Georgetown District sends the most delegates to the congress of the party and it is believed that the outcome could be pivotal to Corbin retaining his post. Lawrence, the PNCR Co-Chair, is seen as a Corbin ally and someone who could promote his candidacy in the event that he decided to run. Had Norton won, sources have said, he would have been in a better position to mount a leadership challenge.

Ainsworth said that for the congress, the party’s Accredi-tation Committee had to ensure the rules for the conduct of the elections as prescribed were “strictly” enforced. He emphasised that no candidate must serve on the committee and that the list of delegates should be made available within a reasonable time, so that any member may scrutinise and make challenges if necessary.

Additionally, he said, the ballot should be secret and all voters should have to present some form of picture identification in order to receive a ballot paper.

He also stressed that the party was “a national institution” and as a consequence should have “no fear” of any public debate regarding its praxis. “After all, we are doing the people’s business,” he explained, “and we must at all times be prepared to demonstrate best practices as they relate to governance and defending the democratic processes.” Moreover, he pointed out that it was clear that members who were not party members were present at the Georgetown Conference, noting the presence of a Stabroek News reporter. “Those people who feel that everything must be done in secrecy and behind closed doors need to understand that we are living in different times,” he observed. “We are in the information age where knowledge informs decision-making and no individual or group or people has a monopoly on knowledge or ideas. They had better change or they will become extinct like the dinosaurs,” he said.
Streamlining the process

Concerns about lack of transparency in the process led former party vice-Chairman Vincent Alexander to withdraw his candidacy for party leader at the 2007 congress. Alexander, a member of the Guyana Elections Commission, said if the PNCR did not want to be dragged into accusations about its internal elections, it had to “streamline” the process in a manner that        he and his supporters had suggested. Among their proposals, he noted, were the creation of an electoral roll, polling stations as well as the monitoring and execution of polls in a manner similar to national elections. He further said the polls needed to stand up to scrutiny from the registration of membership to the declaration of results, since the processes were all inter-related.

Alexander also recalled that his campaign’s call for a more transparent system had not been supported by Norton, who had dismissed Team Alexander’s call for a verification of the membership of party groups after an explosion in numbers as a red herring. “[Norton] called it a red herring and is now crying foul, foul,” he said, while emphasising the need for all members within any organisation to take principled positions at all times, even when they were not personally affected by the issues at hand. In that regard, he said such an attitude needed to be addressed by the party as an organisation as well as by those individuals who did not take responsibility when the issues were raised.
A bad system

Former party executive Sherwood Lowe rested the situation squarely on the shoulders of Corbin, saying it demonstrated that the party leader no longer cared about the public’s perception. Further, he thought that the situation also reflected a mindset on the part of Corbin and those close to him that the party was incapable of winning elections. As a result, he said, their concern seemed to be holding on to power  – assured by a loyal but dwindling constituency – while the fate of the party came second.

Lowe, who supported Alexander’s campaign at the last congress, believed if there were any serious concerns about the party’s image there would have been a very public move to address the questions raised about the internal electoral processes more than two years ago.

According to him, a number of polling procedures had often been the source of complaints in the past, including the distribution of ballot papers in a “haphazard” way, which allowed persons to get hold of multiple ballots as well as the padding of the votes with phantom delegates who seemingly “emerge from nowhere.” He said the party should have moved to institute proper voting measures in the immediate aftermath of the last congress, but its failure to do so had seen recurrences.  Norton, Lowe added, should have been pushing for the reforms since then. “Aubrey Norton was beaten because he thought he could play the game better than those he came up against,” Lowe argued, saying he should not have left loopholes that could be exploited. “They should have put systems in place to ensure that the elections were smooth and conflict free,” he explained, “What happened at the Georgetown District conference was that you had the bad elements of a bad system on display.”
The wrong message

Looking ahead to this year’s congress, another former executive James McAllister said if there was “a real desire for a transparency” the party needed to move to put in place clear procedures for establishing the accuracy of the delegates’ roll and for ensuring the secrecy of the vote. He explained that while there had been concern over the issues in the past, some sections “flatly refused” to have privacy of the vote or determination of the accuracy of the delegates’ list. “The open voting allows ‘supervisors’ to direct the vote,” and he recalled that in 2004 the Accreditation Committee was not allowed to make random checks of the Secretariat records, including submitted membership forms, spreadsheets, and financial records that would authenticate membership. “[I’m] not saying they did, but this situation allows for the incumbent to tamper,” he added.

McAllister said the controversy that marred last week’s process “impacts on the credibility” of the party and could affect the trust and confidence voters placed in it. “From all reports, Norton’s allegations are credible [and] if the results are allowed to stand with no formal investigation then it will be sending the wrong message,” he noted, adding that following what he dubbed the “fiasco” at the last Biennial Congress, the situation opened the door for the party’s opponents, like the ruling PPP/C, to make an argument to the electorate that the party was not to be trusted, especially in public office.

According to McAllister, while the Georgetown Committee had already been installed, the party’s constitution allowed for it to be removed by the PNCR Central Executive Committee after investigation. “So if there is an investigation and substantial fraud is established the committee should be removed,” he said, pointing out that “it will be a clear case of bringing the party into disrepute so all persons responsible must be dealt with in accordance with the party’s constitution, no matter what is the office of that person.”

He noted, however, that the fact that the party leader was viewed as part of a faction at the District Conference meant structures for redress over which he had control would not enjoy confidence.

Meanwhile, McAllister, while conceding that party members had a legitimate concern about the potential damage issues in the public domain, said the spill-over was inevitable once there was a perception that there was no internal justice.

He added that concerned members must push for structures to ensure internal justice.