Dear Editor,
Many people I conversed with endorse the view expressed by former House Speaker Ralph Ramkarran in a column captioned ‘Jagdeo and arrogance to blame for PPP/C loss’ (Sunday Stabroek, Jan 17), excerpts of which were also extracted as a news item in SN the following day. The commentary and news item made reference to the selection of the PPP presidential nominee for the 2011 general elections. I will not dwell on the dominant role (or perceived arrogance, etc) of former President Bharrat Jagdeo in the selection of Donald Ramotar as the presidential candidate. And he alone should not be blamed for the selection as it was a ‘group think’ decision with which all members went along in the end; Jagdeo had his own reason for influencing the choice of Ramotar that may or may not coincide with the publicly expressed view.
Suffice it to say that the party leadership knew it was on a disastrous course if it proceeded on the selection of Ramotar as he was very unpopular among the rank and file, middle class and the business class. Several prominent individuals closely connected with the leadership so informed the leaders and those who vote to choose the nominee. Several leading members of the PPP all over the heartland told me in interactions that the party would not win with Mr Ramotar (not that he was a bad guy; he simply did not have charm and charisma as far as the base was concerned) and many did not view him as presidential material. In addition, opinion polls I conducted (not for the PPP) and published in the media showed several candidates (Ramkarran, Moses Nagamootoo, Navin Chanderpaul, Robert Persaud, Frank Anthony, etc) as being far more popular and likeable than Ramotar. The polls also showed that Ramotar would struggle to cross 50% support whereas Ramkarran or Nagamootoo or some other candidate would easily win a majority. The polls I conducted were dismissed in favour of two other polls (one conducted from UG and another by the PPP itself, showing the party winning a landslide with Ramotar’s candidacy). The UG poll showed the PPP getting 65% and the other poll 70%; the party was confident it would win even if the unpopular Ramotar were the candidate.
In spite of all the warnings and objections from the party’s membership, the party Executive Committee (15 members) went ahead and (arrogantly) chose Mr Ramotar as the nominee, and the Central Committee rubber stamped the selection knowing fully well the disastrous electoral expectations which would follow. In that sense, the entire leadership, not just Mr Jagdeo, was arrogant. Had they paid heed to the findings of scientific polls (available free in the media) and objective analysis from scholars, they would have opted for a winnable candidate and the party would have remained in office. Ramkarran or Nagamootoo or Chanderpaul would have easily won the election. Ramkarran was the most popular nationally among supporters of all parties, winning cross-racial support, although Nagamootoo was more popular among party supporters, particularly the sugar base. Chanderpaul also had solid grass roots support among the sugar workers and farmers, but had limited cross-over appeal.
Mr Ramkarran is right in stating that the PPP leadership was absolutely confident that it would win the election, mistakenly believing that Indians would accept anyone as the candidate. That much was revealed to me in private, although some members of the Central Committee expressed deep reservations about a victory pointing to the unpopularity of Mr Ramotar.
In another sign of arrogance, the party leadership also dismissed the departure from the PPP of the dynamic Nagamootoo, saying he would not take any support from the party’s base. Mr Nagamootoo was enormously popular with the PPP base and polls I conducted showed him pulling substantial support from that base. The party, as expected, dismissed the findings of the polls saying their polls showed Ramotar would win. One party apparatchik told me Ramotar would get between 65 and 70% of the votes. I responded that he would struggle to get 50%, and that was the actual outcome. Several ACG supporters in NY were informed of the poll’s findings and sounded a dire warning to the party leadership not to dismiss the findings of the poll.
I will not doubt the claims made by Mr Ramkarran that party organizers told him the party could not win. And several members of the Central Committee did say they would vote for another nominee if the balloting were secret. There was a long struggle for the secret ballot in that nomination contest. In the end, the leadership agreed to the secret ballot. But Mr Ramkarran, recognizing the cards stacked against him, withdrew from the contest. The party rejected a terrific candidate who would still have been serving as president perhaps paving the way for a successor this year.
The party also miscalculated the loss of support in Nagamootoo’s departure. Thousands in the PPP heartland voted for Naga, as he was fondly called, and/or stayed away from the polling booths because of the tone of the campaign from the PPP side. The PPP lost its majority. Had Naga been made a deputy prime ministerial or a vice presidential candidate, he would have stuck with the party and it would have won. But the PPP has been known not to think or act on reason and what is in its best interest.
The party did not fully learn the lesson of 2011 and repeated some of the same errors in 2015. There was no effort at reconciliation between 2011 and 2015. The PPP cannot regain office unless it has a strong charismatic candidate appealing to those who departed from the base as well as who can garner cross-over support from other ethnic groups. No party can win an election with the support of one ethnic group. The party also needs to reform itself embracing internal democracy in the selection of candidates as well as allow for open critique of its operations.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
