It seems the political landscape in Guyana is undergoing change, which is saying something considering that we have been stuck in the same time-warp for almost the last five decades. Burnham and Jagan passed from the scene, but in terms of the party structures that continued after them, it was as if they had never left. It is true that Mr Jagdeo managed to wriggle himself free of his party’s apron strings, but the larger PPP culture still underpins his government, and in any case we will presumably be back to the status quo ante come the next election because he will not be able to run again. No, it is the main opposition party which is the one undergoing fundamental ‘change’ − the passing of Hoyte, it seems, having in the end proved the catalyst.
It is change, however, of a peculiarly destructive sort. At the moment the nation is spectator to the unusual sight of the PNC in an apparent process of implosion. At the fulcrum of this possible disintegration is the current leader of the party, Mr Robert Corbin, whose baggage from an earlier era is well known, and who led the PNC to its worst election result ever in 2006. It is not as if, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, that the party qua party has ever undertaken a serious analysis of those results, and what went wrong. The fiasco was passed over virtually without comment. And it really was a fiasco. The PNCR-1G obtained 51,000 fewer votes than the less cumbersomely titled PNCR garnered in 2001, and its losses were particularly marked in its heartland areas. In 2001, it won Region 4 with 54% of the vote; five years later, its share was down to 46%. In the case of Region 7, its 41% win from 2001 was down to 29% in 2006, and the story is similar in Region 8, where its percentage plummeted from 33 in 2001 to 19 two years ago. But the real embarrassment must have been Region 10, where its leader’s links were strongest. There a robust showing of 74% in 2001 had declined to 51% in the last election.
Now it is true that since the return of free elections Mr Hoyte never won a victory either. However, under his leadership the party maintained its traditional quantum of 40-42% of the vote, which was the share of the PNC in an ethnically divided society even before the first rigged election of 1968. The precipitous downward slide to 34% in the year 2006, therefore, really did mark a major departure from the norm. It might be observed that the party did nothing to ensure its constituents were registered, and neither did it work to get out the vote on a holiday when public transportation was not easily available. In the event, not only did a substantial number of traditional PNC voters stay home that day, but a significant number of those who did turn out put their X next to the AFC, a change of allegiance which was largely responsible for that party obtaining over 28,000 votes. As it was, therefore, the PPP/C won a bigger majority in 2006 with a vote tally that was 26,000-plus less than the one it got in 2001. In other words, the PNC blew the opportunity to hold the PPP/C to a draw in Parliament.
In any other democracy after such a debacle the leader of a main opposition party would have resigned without further ado − but not here. Mr Corbin sailed on as before without a reference to the election, and despite the fact that it was clear to everyone, including members of the PNC, that his leadership was a major factor in the defections to the AFC. He seemed to display a curious psychological detachment from events, as if he could make no connection between himself as leader of the party, and the party’s failures. And so it has continued, despite the fact that it is apparent to many that he is “unelectable.” A former senior member of the PNC, Mr James McAllister, in a telephone interview last week with this newspaper spelt this out quite unambiguously.
Mr Corbin’s leadership was challenged at the last party congress by ‘Team Alexander,’ as it was called. Whether it was the best way to confront him considering that the challengers were not in control of the party machinery is perhaps a moot point; in any event they failed, amid allegations of vote rigging. Those allegations too did nothing to distance Mr Corbin from perceptions that he was still attached to an obsolete order which has no place in any Guyanese party in the twenty-first century. What happened next, however, was of equal importance: Mr Corbin then set about ‘disciplining’ his critics. It is unfortunate that some of the persons he has sought to bring before a disciplinary committee as well as those who have elected to move out of his ambit in recent times because of his leadership style, represent a segment of the more obvious talents in the PNC and, it might be added, the more progressive. In one fell swoop, therefore, Mr Corbin – whatever justification he felt there was for disciplinary hearings – has presented to the public an image of someone who is unable to cope with criticism, and by extension, therefore, is evincing a capacity for vindictiveness. In addition, he has now set himself up to come across as a person who is uncomfortable with people of ability around him. He will undoubtedly deny this; unfortunately for him, however, citizens operate on whatever evidence is in the public domain and the messages, subliminal or otherwise, which to all appearances are being transmitted.
Whatever justification Mr Corbin believes he has for acting in the way he has, the net result has presumably not been what he intended. Far from silencing his critics, he has effectively split the upper echelons of the party and in the process brought himself under greater pressure than would have been the case otherwise. He is now no longer in a position to unite the PNC behind him, and as a consequence the party which has represented African Guyanese for half a century has been wounded, perhaps mortally. Furthermore, the party grass roots on the street perceive him as less than deft in his dealings with the President – a fatal flaw in their view.
It is at least partly true that a government is as good as its opposition. That is to say, an effective opposition can circumscribe the actions of a government and force it into a measure of accountability and better governance. We are now in a situation where there is a vacuum in the opposition, notwithstanding the presence of the AFC, which still does not command sufficient support on the ground to have the weight of the PNC in its heyday. All in all, it is not a formula for good government.
It is true that the PNC has no mechanism for removing a leader, other than by a challenge at congress. However, even in those democratic jurisdictions where such mechanisms are lacking or imprecise, there is the generally accepted assumption that a failed leader – particularly following a major electoral defeat – will resign as a matter of honour. The party, so the belief goes, is infinitely more important than the man. In the case of Britain’s Conservative Party, therefore, there has been a whole procession of leaders following John Major’s loss to the Labour Party in 1997. Subsequent Tory defeats produced the resignations first of William Hague, and then of Iain Duncan-Smith, and David Cameron’s fate too might hinge on how his party performs in the next elections.
In the light of the 2006 loss, and the current spate of high profile defections, etc, why does Mr Corbin even want to hang on? Given his image and what has happened, he is not the man who can resuscitate the party, while he is simply setting himself up for a further battering from his critics. Furthermore, his problems can only get worse the longer he stays, and one cannot help but wonder how he could possibly see that as being to his personal advantage. Who would want to go down in history as being prepared to stand by and watch the possible disintegration of one’s party, rather than resign?
There are too many variables in play to be able to say exactly how all of this will evolve. Even if Mr Corbin does go, the fate of the PNC will still depend on whether whoever succeeds him is able to re-establish the party structures, give it a sense of direction and heal the rifts. Even if he doesn’t go soon, one cannot completely write off the possibility that in the longer term when he does, and under the direction of someone inspired, the party like the Phoenix will rise from the ashes. Whether that would be conceivable would depend on what happens in the interim. One cannot rule out either that in due course a new party altogether might be formed, or that some of the prominent members who have detached themselves from the PNC, will align with the AFC – which would clearly have implications for that party. As far as the short term is concerned, however, one must presume that the PNC will continue on its current downward path if Mr Corbin remains.
