Dear Editor,
Harry Hergash is spot on in asserting that “the PPP needs introspection and hard work to make it compliant with 21st century democratic norms” (SN, Nov12). A conundrum embroils the top leaders of the PPP in the wake of its removal from office last May: What should it do to regain political office next elections? After the 2011 defeat, there did not seem to be any serious analysis as to why the party lost support. And six months after the May 2015 defeat, nothing seems to be on the horizon (in terms of introspection or) on what the party will do to recapture defected support. It is business as usual in the PPP.
Listening to several political leaders, they seem confident they will win. The same leaders echoed similar sentiments after November 2011 when the party lost its majority by putting up a candidate who lacked widespread support among traditional supporters and even Central Committee members. So party thinking has not changed much between 2012 and 2015. The thought process of the party leadership has remained the same for decades, and the party plans to repeat the errors (or blunders) of the past, all the while expecting different results. How that can happen is beyond intelligence. The leadership seems to know something that independent (brilliant) political analysts don’t. Unless the party democratizes internally, as Mr Hergash advises, it is likely to languish in opposition ad infinitum.
Supporters complain that there is a dictatorial style of control of top-down decision-making in the PPP (indeed in all the parties), as opposed to bottom-up democracy in which the members or supporters exercise control of party affairs and select candidates. There is an absolute disenchantment with the way all three parties operate. A new generation of voters would no longer tolerate top-down directives. They want to be participants in the working of the party. Members also want to be free to openly criticize their party’s leadership without having to worry about victimization. As I found in discussions with voters earlier this year, people are thoroughly fed up with their parties. Parties have not changed over the last several decades while the world outside has changed and politics itself has undergone transformation. The parties urgently need to move with the times, too. The PPP (indeed all parties) needs to reform and democratize its internal workings to be attractive to non-supporters. What will improve the PPP’s chances is essentially internal democracy, especially when tribalized voting is no longer enough to win an election, or when any slight deviation in support can cost a party an election as happened in 2011 and 2015. Widespread participation among citizens in internal party politicking is more important today than ever before to retain support and enhance the prospect of victory in the next election. The party leadership has to give its members a voice in the workings of the party and by extension a voice in the governance of their country.
There is no reason why the PPP should not embrace party democracy, in which members vote to select leaders (party executives, central committee, executive committee, candidates for various offices, etc). But PPP internal politics is in crisis and reform is urgently needed. And lack of internal democracy, as surmised by op ed writers, cost it the elections in 2011and 2015. Unless there is political reform within, people won’t be bothered to look at a party. The old heads have to make way for younger Turks with the older leaders serving as advisors. Unless there is democracy within the party, problems will only get worse for the PPP. There will be division and disunity among members leading to leakage in support similar to what has been happening since 2001. Also, democracy is good for the party as it helps it to take on politically powerful (narrow, partisan) interests. It also helps to reduce the corrupt and overbearing influence of a few who call the shots on the direction of the party and who will be its presidential and prime ministerial candidates.
A refusal to reform has constrained the organization and operation of the PPP. The party has been credited with institutionalizing democracy within the country post the PNC dictatorship. Now, the PPP leadership should direct its energy to institutionalizing democracy within the structure of the party. There is no reason why there should not be competition among potential leaders for influence instead of a dictatorship by a few who are intransigent about reform and who hog publicity, depriving the party of a new breed of leaders.
No political party in this century can survive without reforms in which power is invested in its membership. In the so called bourgeois countries, party members exercise power. In very few countries have old, tired, worn-out leaders who continue to vie for dominance and control of party affairs. The old establishment in the PPP should not be fearful of newcomers. Political opening will not undermine the ethos of the PPP remaining a working class party.
It should be noted as Mr Hergash insinuates, that had the party been fully democratic with the members selecting the presidential candidate, the party would not have been divided. Moses Nagamootoo would not have left. And it would not have lost its majority in parliament. Ralph Ramkarran would not have been excommunicated and the party would have retained much of the support it lost last May. It would not have been ousted from office.
The PPP must move away from the authoritarian internal trend of the past. Reforms are
generally considered a positive thing for any party and the nation. The PPP leadership should open up the party to individuals of all ideologies and streams of political thought to become members. There must be an end to internal ‘machine politics’ in which a handful of individuals make all the decisions.
Reform inclusive of ‘one person one vote’ for choosing central committee and ex co leadership and the candidates for office will help to bring about the kind of modernization the party needs to bring it closer to 21st century functions. Indeed, party supporters and members have been advocating such reforms for the longest while as I found in my field work, but it only fell on deaf ears.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
