APNU Leader David Granger has identified the lower than anticipated voter turnout and the PPP/C’s abuse of state resources during the campaign as the main reasons why his party did not secure the presidency at November’s elections.
Assessing the performance of the party he led into the polls, Granger told Stabroek News that while A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)did not secure “a complete victory”, the results were not completely disappointing because APNU and the Alliance For Change (AFC) together gained a majority.
“So we are satisfied that the tide has turned against the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) and the majority of the voters are on the side of the AFC and the APNU combined, that is to say, that the majority of voters want change and they are dissatisfied in the way the country has been administered by the PPP over the last years,” Granger said in a recent exclusive interview with Stabroek News. The results, he said, could be the foundation of the type of change that Guyanese want.
Although the PPP/C was able to chalk up its fifth successive victory at the polls with 166,340 votes (48.6 %) at the recent elections, it failed to get the majority as it had done successfully since assuming office in 1992. Significantly, the party lost 17,000 votes from the 2006 elections. On the other hand, APNU with 139,638 votes and the AFC with 35,333 votes combined to secure 32,000 more votes than the PNCR-1G and AFC managed in 2006.
Voter turnout was measured at 72.9%, which represented a rise over the 68.82% recorded at the last elections but which was still significantly lower than the turnout for elections since 1992. Granger, though, said that the 72 percent turnout was lower than expected and said the APNU was hoping for a turnout of about 85 percent. He said that the 72 .9 % voter turnout meant that some 130,000 people did not vote. “When you consider the gap between APNU and the PPP is fewer than 30,000 you can see a bigger turnout may have given us the edge we wanted,” Granger said.
Asked what may have contributed to this relatively low turnout, Granger cited several reasons including the failure of persons to collect their ID cards and transportation challenges caused by elections day being declared a national holiday. However, according to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) the failure by registered persons to collect their ID cards would not have prevented persons from voting on elections day once they turned up at the correct polling station.
Granger also pointed to some measure of voter apathy in traditional PPP strongholds. “I’m aware too that there was an element of voter apathy in some of the areas that we can call the “red regions”-the areas that were traditionally affiliated with the PPP/C and they did not vote out of anger and frustration at the performance of the PPP over the years,” he said. He said maybe some of these persons were not willing to vote for another party. Granger noted that there was a high turnout among the young voters which favoured his party.
Granger also accused the ruling party of abusing the state media, which he said gave “lavish and extravagant” coverage to the PPP/C. APNU, he said had compiled a dossier of abuses committed by the Government Information Agency (GINA) and distributed it to international organizations. Granger also pointed to the sharing out of flood relief to victims in Region 9 months after the flood would have occurred.
He said too that the PPP/C’s presidential candidate Donald Ramotar was allowed to travel to various events internationally and locally with then President Bharrat Jagdeo. This, Granger said, gave Ramotar a clear advantage over the other candidates.
“All in all, I think the abuse of state resources gave the PPP an advantage over the APNU and the AFC,” Granger said. “It’s not just the benefit of incumbency, it’s the abuse of State resources which gave them that advantage,” he added.
Questioned about what had prevented the PPP/C from gaining a majority as it had done consistently since 1992, Granger attributed this to the poor record of former President Jagdeo and his performance on the campaign trail.
“Perhaps the greatest contribution was made by [then] President Bharrat Jagdeo because every time he spoke he alienated another section of the electorate. His arrogance, his demeanour, his insulting language, his personal attacks…I think contributed immensely to the disfavour….to the way people perceived the PPP/C,” Granger said.
Further, the APNU Chairman said that “the performance of the PPP is not as glittering as some people think”.
“When you look at the corruption, when you look at the contraband, when you look at the crime that is taking place-the death toll, the murder rate, the accident rate, the banditry, the piracy- the collapse of the education system, the number of drop outs we’ve had, the joblessness among young people, people had no reason to vote for the PPP. I’m surprised they got so [many votes],” he declared.
Meanwhile, Granger played down the impact that Moses Nagamootoo’s move over from the PPP to the AFC had on the electorate in Region 6 saying that this may have been marginal given that he only crossed over in October. “It would have been a miracle if he was the main factor,” Granger said.
While stressing that he was not trying to diminish Nagamootoo’s contribution, Granger said that a lot of the “spade work” was done by other AFC members. “I’m convinced that the spade work was done by other people [Dr Veerasammy] Ramayya and Charrandass [Persaud], the damage was done by the PPP’s attitude to the sugar workers and the crossover occurred mainly in the sugar belt, particularly in East and West Berbice and on the Corentyne,” he said. According to Granger, “there was no real crossover in the non-sugar areas. So it was a problem that was created in part by the PPP’s mismanagement of the economy, in particular the sugar industry”.
“So I would not give undue weight to the Nagamootoo factor because, in fact, Nagamootoo was on the ground (only) for the last month of the elections by which time, I think, many people might have made up their minds and the damage may have been done and the PPP just couldn’t repair the damage,” he said.
