The mask is off. After standing aloof from the head of state’s obsessions with the genus corvus for the last few weeks, and uttering appeasing noises about a willingness to work with the opposition should he be elected, PPP/C presidential candidate Donald Ramotar finally broke cover in Bartica last Saturday and revealed his true face. At least, if he didn’t reveal his true face then the nation has a problem; it would mean that somebody else is pulling the strings, and he was just accommodating himself to their wishes – hardly, one might have thought, the best recommendation for anyone who wants to be president. As it is, however, one must assume that he is his own man, and that what he said at the Bartica rally was what he meant to say.
And what he did say was directed towards individual opposition leaders, whom he described in opprobrious terms. That being so, as indicated above, he has now undermined his earlier position on the campaign trail, making clear to the electorate that he really has no intention after all of taking a conciliatory approach to those outside the charmed circle of Freedom House, and whatever it is voters should expect from him, that does not include dignity, decorum and nobility of intention. The highlight of his address was the extraordinary claim that the opposition leaders had no moral right to hold public office, a statement less remarkable for its offensiveness than for its sheer foolishness.
Of course, the location being Bartica, the Greek Chorus on the platform did not overlook the opportunity to renew their allegations about the connections between the PNC and criminals, while Mr Jagdeo’s traditional scaremongering line was trotted out yet again, ie, if APNU got into office guns would be given to criminals. In other words, misrepresentations aside, the whole tenor of the presentations was at a very low level, and hardly testified to the competence or judgement of the speakers concerned. It might be noted that at a meeting in Buxton last week, where the crowd was noisy and the hecklers drowned out the party representatives at various points, the team on the platform including Mr Ramotar, kept the presentations within the confines of the acceptable. Clearly, therefore, there is some discretion in operation when the occasion necessitates it, but at all other times, the goal seems to be to aim for the gutter.
The opposition to begin with – at least in its major encounters with the public – pitched its speeches at a moderately higher level, with the notable exception of Mr Moses Nagamootoo at Whim where he made a comment which was quite beyond the pale, and then again in Cummings Lodge. It certainly did the AFC no credit, more particularly when that party is touting a return to decency. Messrs Granger and Roopnaraine have not yet descended to the coarse and disreputable.
Since the PPP/C, the primary offender on party platforms, is showing no sign of changing tactics despite the barrage of criticism it has encountered, the question has to be asked again, exactly why is it so determined to run such a negative and low-level campaign. What is noticeable is that this party is the one generating the most complaints about the others – over billboards, what Campaign Manager Robert Persaud called a fear and intimidation campaign on Facebook and what he alleged was an organized attempt to “assault” and “abuse” persons and disrupt the PPP/C meeting last week at Buxton. He also made an allegation about people being beaten on leaving the meeting, which produced a press release from the police yesterday stating that the ranks on duty neither saw nor received any report of this, and that anyone who may have been a victim should make a report.
Certainly if the disruption was centrally planned, as the PPP/C has claimed, then it would be a very unwelcome development which must be condemned. If it was not planned, however, APNU still needs to work to persuade its adherents that while a measure of heckling is part and parcel of campaigning, this cannot descend into total disruption for reasons which hardly require elaboration.
Having said that, however, it bears repeating that it is the PPP/C which inaugurated the poison campaign on its platforms, and it cannot complain about others without reviewing its own behaviour. If it doesn’t change direction it opens itself to the accusation that perhaps it is hoping to incite the opposition into indiscretions. It could then heat up the action and point accusing fingers at its electoral opponents, who, it would say, had not changed their spots. After all, this is its traditional rallying cry which it has always felt would play well with its supporters, and bring them out on election day.
It has been mentioned before in these columns that it becomes harder to energize the base the longer a party is in power, and the PPP/C appears to be suffering from that. In addition, it is clear that the leadership has nothing new to say. Of course, it is standard practice for an incumbent to offer its record as evidence of its qualification to be returned to office, but the governing party in this case has no new exciting speaker who could put a novel spin on what the supporters already know, so negativity is substituting for novelty.
But there is something else too. Is this relentless disparagement of opponents also a sign of a certain desperation? For the first time since 1992, is the PPP/C not as confident as it usually is going into an election, hence the fallback on bottom house tactics? It has certainly been shunting supporters around from one rally to the next, something it never had to do in the past; in earlier times the crowds just came out on their own.
Since the rally platforms are not producing anything very useful in terms of an explication of programmes and policies, perhaps we might learn more from a presidential debate. Mr Ramotar was being very coy about this prior to yesterday, but now the PPP/C has announced that he would in fact participate in such a debate being organized by NCN. This of course is a setting where Mr Ramotar would feel infinitely more comfortable than if the encounter took place in an independent context. Much depends, of course, on the rules for the debate and who the moderator is, as to how useful and fair it would be from the public’s point of view. If the arrangements do not allow for real debate, then the purpose of the exercise would be defeated.
