Dear Editor,
In your news article, ‘Riehl says Granger “too aloof,”’ (July 28), former Deputy House Speaker and PNCR executive, Clarissa Riehl is reported as describing Mr David Granger as “an aloof leader who stands aside” when he should be more involved in the management of the party. That assessment resonates with many at home and abroad. And while the bigger irony is that this description also accurately applies to President Donald Ramotar, it is that Mr Granger was supposed to have an edge over the President, whose career spans a few years working at the
PPP-controlled Gimpex, a decade in Czechoslovakia on the editorial board of the World Socialist Review, and General Secretary of the PPP, during which time the party haemorrhaged voters and lost its parliamentary majority. He literally inherited a mess he helped to create, because the party in power is supposed to help ensure the President abides by rules and laws.
Mr Granger, on the other hand, has been roundly praised as a decent, thoughtful, disciplined and intelligent man, who spent more than two decades serving the nation via the army, retiring at the level of Brigadier, which meant he was supposed to possess tremendous leadership skills, including something akin to a ‘killer instinct’ that could be applied in the political arena. But with so much wrong continuing to happen in the government and the country after the majority of voters handed APNU and AFC the opportunity via a parliamentary majority to help keep the corrupt PPP regime in check and pass legislation to restore good governance, Mr Granger appeared almost completely detached for the last 32 months, except for occasions when he interrupted his routine meet-and-greet the people to offer some motorized, inconsequential public statement on some hot-button issues. Unless there is some latent and potent aspect of his leadership that will emerge over the remaining 28 months of his role as Opposition Leader, it is too early to conclude that his detachment is psychological, meaning, he feels overwhelmed by what he has discovered about the job or the gravity of the problems in government, and so he has checked out mentally or physiologically, meaning he cannot handle the stress, hence he is in withdrawal mode. Still, he seems to be quietly championing this emerging political rainbow of hope under which ‘One Guyana’ will rise. It seems like an idea or a concept, derived from the constitutional clause that advocates ‘inclusionary governance,’ which may be why he spent the last 32 months appearing less inclined to be antagonistic towards the PPP. A historian, as per his writings, he is probably deeply au fait with the failure of racial politics in uniting and developing Guyana for all Guyanese, regardless of race, and probably does not want to be on the wrong side of history, so he likely believes being too militant against the PPP without the full backing of all races is politically outdated and self-defeating. If the majority of Guyanese crying for changes in the way government does business buy into the foregoing, they would likely agree there is no need to be militant, which militancy could potentially risk a PPP reaction that sparks a political wildfire no one could control, let alone easily put out.
This may then explain Mr Granger’s aloofness or detachment, even as many are begging for militant leadership against the intractable PPP. Many times, Mr Granger would promise action on issues, and except for those the PPP could have afforded to ‘lose’, he has not really stopped the PPP regime from its excesses. The biggest and most recent example of Mr Granger’s passivity was the Finance Minister’s complete disregard for the authority of the House in illegally tapping into the Consolidated Fund and spending monies on items the House voted down in the 2014 Budget. This is not the first or second or fifth time the government has openly engaged in lawlessness, which is why there is a growing opinion among many Guyanese, at home and abroad, against Mr Granger’s passivity. Public opinion, by itself, is useless and powerless unless capitalized on by proactive and sensitive leadership.
As a historian, Mr Granger has to know that history doesn’t act independently and needs a vehicle or a conduit. As he helps write Guyana’s history he has to weigh between promoting a rainbow coalition of parties to govern Guyana without jeopardizing the peace, on the one hand, and taking steps to boldly counter the PPP’s brazen defiance of laws and logic, on the other hand. The PPP has obviously reached the stage where it does not care about public opinion any more, and, if anything, it has used the opposition’s passivity to become emboldened in pursuit of its macabre political excursion, while giving the entire nation the middle figure as a salute to their docility. A real leader of any true political opposition would have stepped up to the crease and batted for everyone, including those who did not vote for him or his party. Mr Granger does not even emit passion or charisma. He does not appear capable of rallying a crowd. Yet he seems more inclined to be on the right side of history with his rainbow concept and not being the cause of a devastating political flood. But for many Guyanese, history is being written now; they are living it, and they cannot wait for others to read its outcome. The PPP’s domination must end, but not after severe devastation, which is why if we leave it up to Mr Granger to lead the forces of history to repel the PPP’s aggression and redeem the government, his re-election as PNCR Leader is inconsequential.
Guyana is in serious trouble; Mr Granger’s inclusive governance rainbow may be emerging, but rainbows don’t always last, which is why the job of the Opposition Leader is to intervene on behalf of frustrated and angry Guyanese with an ‘aggressive urgency of now’ type of politics. Otherwise, history will remember him as the Opposition Leader who could have, but never became President of Guyana.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
