Dear Editor,
Opposition Leader, and Leader of the Peoples National Congress Reform (PNCR) Robert Corbin, on March 27 made a bold and untimely announcement at the party’s General Council meeting, namely, that he had decided not to be the party’s presidential candidate for the upcoming general elections. This news came as a surprise even to his closest allies, even though they knew that such a move was not extraneous to the nature of Robert Corbin. While some members remained frozen in a state of awe and disbelief, others voiced their non-approval of his decision, making comments such as, “We have to decide that”; “We put you there.” The leader reminded the meeting that the party had always striven to put the interest of the nation first and that his decision should be viewed in the light of that underlying principle. He also hinted at the need for the party to harmonize and re-energize to deal with the issues confronting Guyana now and the period ahead. While the members listened, it was clear that there would not be unanimous acceptance on their part for his decision.
While many find Mr Corbin’s decision hard to accept we believe that the party must use the immediate period to determine the manner in which it should identify a suitable candidate, capable of representing the values of Guyanese. The distractions and internal squabbles must cease and the only plan should be to work together to devise a robust strategy to wrestle Guyana out of the claws of the PPP/C, in order that we can skilfully tackle the continuous constitutional breaches of the current administration, and sensibly tackle the issue of poverty, crime, corruption, discrimination and grave mismanagement of the economy
In an article published in the Stabroek News of March 31, captioned ‘Opportunity seen in Corbin move – but scepticism abounds,’ Mr Vincent Alexander was reported as expressing an element of scepticism, a reality that every Guyanese should be able to understand and appreciate given the nature of many of our local politicians. Apart from Mr Corbin, we are not sure which other politician, knowing that he/she would be the likely candidate, would make such a move on two different occasions, without being pressured into same. So Mr Alexander’s suspicion must be understood in this context, though he broadened his suspicion to speak generally to politicians.
Former PNCR leader hopeful Dr Richard Van West Charles also commented, saying that now that Mr Corbin had stated his position regarding the issue of the presidential candidate, the question of him being party leader should be dealt with. The doctor also hinted to the press that the party’s leader should automatically be the party’s candidate, as the PNC constitution speaks only to a leader. While we respect Dr Van West Charles’s views, we do believe that he is beginning to tread a dangerous path that is more likely to do harm to the party than good. Comments like these are likely to be music to the ears of the ruling party, whose only hope is that the party engages in petty squabbles and self distracting behaviour from now until 2011. The comrade must know that the issue of the party leader was recently settled at the last congress, which he actively participated in and strongly scrutinized. The people, through their ballot, made their decision as to who their leader should be and it is only they who can change this. If Robert Corbin decides to honour the wishes of the members and serve until such time that they remove their confidence in him, then our only option is to abide by the party’s rules and let the will of the people prevail – unless we are capable of mobilizing sufficient of our members to pass a no confidence motion in the incumbent. Otherwise we wait and try two years later and respect the democratic framework of the party. Given the recent development, comments like these are likely to be deemed trifling and selfish, and will certainly arouse a deep sense of resentment and animosity on the part of members towards any person who continues to speak in a way that is disrespectful to their wishes and which challenges the constitutional framework of the party. So if we are to truly work towards rebuilding and re-tooling the PNCR, and reenergizing Guyanese, such comments will not help. Our mission must be to engage in a meaningful discussion to decipher the most appropriate method by which the next presidential candidate will be decided, lest we have a repeat of 2006, and then blame it on Robert Corbin. With regard to the issue of the party’s constitution, Dr Van West Charles is correct when he asserted that it does not speak to the issue of a presidential candidate but primarily to a leader. It is not accurate, however, to conclude that because of this void, inadvertent or otherwise, the framers of the constitution intended that in all circumstances the party leader should automatically become the presidential candidate. It appears that it just happened that the past leaders of the party went on to become the presidential candidate and president of the Republic. Some might say it is the custom or culture of the party that allows for this, but this is not to say that the constitution does not allow for any flexibility.
Our investigation revealed that in 1985, at the demise of the founder leader, President LFS Burnham, the effective leader of the party then was the late Dr Ptolemy Reid, while the late Hugh Desmond Hoyte went on to become President and later party leader, elected at a special congress. So while it is true to say that both past leaders of the PNC were the party’s presidential candidates it cannot be argued that there is any automaticity in this situation. One might argue that despite the kind of culture which might have existed in the PNC it is imperative that leaders take bold initiatives to bring about meaningful change for the greater good of the society. One would think that progressive thinkers would prefer a system in the party where the party leader is not automatically the head of government. Such a system would not only ensure that there is a distinct separation of government and party, but it would encourage greater democracy and more accountability to the people. It would also most likely restrict political influence in government programmes and policies. Maybe as a nation, we should begin a conversation on this subject so that it becomes, in part, a pact signed by all political parties. Robert Corbin’s initiative, therefore, should stimulate a discussion to determine what political formula is best for the country and the people of Guyana, the primary objective being to allow more opportunity for ensuring that the concept of good governance in Guyana becomes a reality.
The Opposition Leader’s recent announcement must be seen not only as an opportunity for aspirants to emerge, or for the PNCR as a party to continue to grow, but rather as an opportunity to take Guyana’s politics to a new, different, and progressive level. This can be a mission to transform Guyana and cause people to re-gain hope in the political system.
Yours faithfully,
Ian Williams
Laverna Semple-Burnett
Natasha Small
Esther Fitzpatrick
Lurlene Nestor
