Dear Editor,
Multiple electoral defeats, internal convulsions and external criticisms have transformed the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) into the most democratic political party in Guyana today. I have argued before that a primary system, such as that which exists in the USA, is one of the better known methods of severely reducing the power of party leadership (‘Anyone cognizant with the workings of oligarchies should not be surprised Corbin has been returned as leader’ SN, Aug 24, 2009). But even in such leadership contest, the party oligarchy is still not without significant influence. (I only began to take Barack Obama’s presidential bid really seriously after I saw the chief Democratic Party oligarch, the late Robert Kennedy, standing by his side. People such as he (was) have the kind of networks that take generations to build). When the democratisation process is at the fledgling stage, as it is within the PNCR, the cabal around the leader still holds significant leverage and this leads to the kinds of suspicions we have been witnessing in the press and elsewhere and thus as a party, the PNCR needs to list and clarify the troublesome issues, such as those dealing with the future nature of its own leadership both in and out of parliament.
Of course, one recognises that, depending on how the solutions are conceptualised, some of these may be issues with important national institutional implications. For example, how we view the tendency in the two major political parties to draw a dividing line between the party and parliamentary leaderships may very much depend upon how we view constitutional changes for a reconfiguration of our governance mechanisms. One question is: how strong do we wish to make political parties vis-à-vis individual constituency representatives and even the government? Then again, this position is not unrelated to that envisaged by those who hanker after constitutional change to return to a pre-presidential parliamentary system. On this score, it may be useful to note that our presidential system is the result and not the cause of the dictatorial tendencies within our polity.
Mr Forbes Burnham did not become an authoritarian as a result of the presidential system, quite the opposite! What made Burnham a dictator was his consistent rigging of the elections, which allowed him to totally disregard the electorate. What gives the current situation a similar flavour is the existence of a stable ethnic majority, which again short-circuits the democratic process. The way forward must be to carefully study our specific context and craft party and national constitutional arrangements that will take us forward. In this regard, I believe that maintaining the divide between the party leader and the presidential position might prove useful.
Five creditable persons, any one of whom could put together a sensible team to manage our affairs, are vying to become the presidential candidate of the PNCR. However, political parties are formed not to succumb to any esoteric notion of the good leader but to choose someone who could win. Thus, I have argued elsewhere, that, “… quite apart from the general need to choose leaders who could build bridges across communities, in our specific constitutional and dominant party situation, where opposition votes must be viewed in totality and the numbers are closely matched, opposition parties have additional reasons for choosing candidates with an eye to the constituencies of the ruling group and to avoid like the plague candidates who could constitute a lightning rod for ruling party vilification and mobilization.”
It is in this context that I believe that the best PNCR presidential hopeful is Carl Greenidge. In open political contest, a respectable presidential profile benefits significantly by being able to demonstrate working experience, and apart from the extremely lucky few, this normally would entail having both negative and positive baggage. That said, in my opinion, of all the contestants, Mr Greenidge has the kind of history that the PPP/C and others will find extremely difficult to portray in the negative.
Reference to the Economic Recovery Programme (ERP) as an “empty rice pot” andsuch slogans will not do, since some two decades later, we are in essentially the same kind of relationship. On the positive side, after all is said and done, the economic recovery programme negotiated by Greenidge left us with a comparative growth trajectory that has not been seen in recent times. Notwithstanding all the current talk about growth, the tables below indicate quite clearly what the Kaieteur News editorial ‘Getting left behind’ (Feb 5) must have partly meant.
GDP growth (annual %)
World Bank: World Development Indicators. 2011
*CIA Factbook
It was Greenidge’s ERP that committed the international community to provide debt relief to Guyana and the struggle for debt relief began. The 1988 ERP recognized that, “Guyana’s continued development also depends heavily on continued access to concessionary external finance, as well as concessionary debt relief.” And the 1992 World Bank report (‘From Economic Recovery to Sustained Growth’) noted that: “Dealing with the problem of the debt has occupied a major segment of the Government’s attention… Guyana has received two reschedulings from the Paris Club, the latest in September 1990 on Toronto terms.”
I have known Carl Greenidge well for some considerable time and he is a most competent and committed Guyanese, who over the years has consistently voluntarily offered his expertise to the national effort.
Our last professional meetings were during my visits to African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) meetings in Geneva, and although even then Carl believed that the Guyana Government was not treating him well, he never once refused to offer his not inconsiderable experience on how best to with the ACP and the European Community.
I will not pay much attention to the government’s recent treatment of Mr Greenidge, save to say that given the nature of the our regime, Greenidge’s consistent support for the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) in the face of the Guyana government’s objections to it and the character of this region, where none of the governments want to be seen as allowing the possibility of their regional and international public servants being mildly critical of them, I believe that Mr Greenidge over-reached with the comments he made at the late Winston Murray’s funeral.
The Kaieteur News editorial referred to above concluded thus: “For more than five decades we have been unable to deal with our ethnic problem… that… has stalled Guyana’s forward movement and from all appearances it will continue to do so for a very long time to come.” Herein lies the challenge and the PNCR cannot do it alone. Whoever wins the bid to be the presidential candidate of that party must have the wisdom to recognise our overriding problem and, more importantly, the finesse to craft a national movement that will extricate us from the present morass.
Yours faithfully,
Henry B Jeffrey
