Dear Editor,
After reading, ‘AFC could still be open to broad alliance with PNCR – Carrington,’ (SN, August 12), I will have to say that unless there is more substance than what has so far been reported in the media from the WPA-sponsored ‘Groundings’ public discussion, last Wednesday, we may well have to wait for another Groundings meeting or two before we get a better grasp of how the Joint Opposition Political Parties (JOPP) intend to advance their agenda in the run up to the 2011 elections. Of all the speakers at the gathering, the only one who came close to putting some semblance of meat on the otherwise bare bone discussion was WPA executive member, Dr David Hinds. Still, speakers seemed to use the forum to echo each other in their criticisms of the Alliance For Change (AFC) for stating it will not form any political alliance with the PPP and or the PNC.
AFC executive, Mr Michael Carrington, who backs an AFC-PNC alliance, spoke in an independent capacity when he opined that the AFC could still be open to a broad alliance that includes the PNC. Dr Hinds posited that the AFC’s position is flawed and WPA co-leader, Professor Clive Thomas, characterized the AFC’s position as “naïve” and “premature.”
The criticisms of the AFC’s decision aside, what struck me as somewhat odd was that the PNC, a senior JOPP partner with the second largest number of parliamentary seats, allowed the WPA to stage this event, whose original theme actually stated that now the AFC had made its decision, what was the next step for the JOPP. Why was this not a JOPP-sponsored event, seeing the WPA is now part of the JOPP?
Editor, to the best of my recollection, the AFC never said it will not work with the WPA, nor did it ever make any abrasive comment about the WPA, so why is the WPA coming across this abrasively with the AFC given that it was the PNC that gave the WPA a whole lot of grief in the past? Is the PNC using the WPA or is the WPA allowing itself to be used as a political attack dog against the AFC?
I can only hope that this is not the case, or else the JOPP is starting off on the wrong foot and it won’t be long before the spirit behind the attack turns partners against each other, resulting in an implosion. I also don’t want to be presumptuous to tell the JOPP what it needs to do, but conventional wisdom says if it wants to be taken seriously by a keenly observing public it has to build on the pointed observations made by Dr Hinds and not become unduly bogged down with trying to rip the AFC. Otherwise the JOPP will begin to come across as lacking self-confidence and may blame the AFC if the partnership collapses. This is why Dr Hinds’ observations should be taken seriously and used as building blocks. Dr Hinds wisely called for the JOPP to broaden its perspective away from a narrow electoral arrangement and focus instead on fundamental societal issues, like corruption, poverty, public security (police and army roles), and the influence of the narco-trade on politics and race. He also wants the JOPP to go into communities long before the day of election and discuss these issues, which can become a mobilizing tool to generate critical mass. The doctor’s mantra seems to be, ‘If we build it, they will come!’
So, with a junior JOPP partner laying out the groundwork on which the partnership should build, time only will tell whether this will be a success. Of interest, though, was that the senior partner was content to send a representative in the person of Mr Basil Williams, whose only contribution of note at the forum reportedly was that the PNC will not support a ‘third term’ for President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Given the PNC’s history, I am not holding out hope that it will maintain this low profile for too long, thus allowing a junior partner to take the lead all the way into 2011. And by that I mean, I won’t believe the PNC is not in on a ‘third term’ deal with the President in exchange for cabinet positions and other perks and privileges until I see the outcome of the 2011 elections. In fact, I think the PNC Leader telegraphed his shot to the PPP constituency specifically when he said he will not be his party’s presidential candidate, but chose to hold onto the party leadership post, which post is twinned with that of the party’s presidential candidate. Are we watching at Robert Corbin, Prime Minister-in-waiting?
As for the AFC, I am awaiting its announced decision on the proposals it received from a group of concerned citizens, including civic society organizations, on the possible formation of an AFC-civic society alliance. So far, the AFC has said that most of what the citizens’ group proposed is in sync with the AFC’s own positions.
In the spirit of democracy, I say we allow the JOPP and the AFC to develop their respective agendas and strategies going forward and, over time, the public will be able to judge which side has a better message and what the next best step is in contesting the 2011 elections. Ironically, we are at a point in 2010 almost identical to a point in 1991: different voices calling for change of a dictatorial and corrupt government, which, while it did not acquire power illegally, has allowed so much illegality under its watch that illegal power acquisition doesn’t look half as bad.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
