There has been little evidence of cohesion in the PNCR since the election, although disaffection has until recently expressed itself not in the form of a comprehensive response to perceived shortcomings, but as a series of reactions to individual issues. As of last week that all changed. On Thursday, an occasion which saw a celebration of the 10th anniversary of A Partnership for National Unity, unnamed members of the PNCR’s Central Executive Committee issued a statement repudiating Leader David Granger’s decision to incorporate “two shell parties” into APNU and accusing him of acting as a “one-man show”. They also promised a Congress this year, something which Mr Granger has given the appearance of being at pains to avoid.
Despite the fact that traditionally the PNC does not like ousting leaders, and that Mr Granger had boosted his support in the central executive by co-opting Mr Joe Harmon and Ms Simona Broomes onto it last year, his position in the party is by no means as well entrenched as perhaps he would like. In the first place, he is not all that popular among the rank and file, and has never been so. There were two interludes when he found favour: the first occurred after he won the election in 2015, and the second paradoxically after he lost the one in 2020, mostly because he confronted the PPP/C and brazenly played up to the old PNC shibboleths about being cheated. But after he relinquished office in August last year all that dissipated, and he emerged from the experience severely weakened.
It should be noted that that political weakness was in evidence even before last year’s election when in 2018 the man he appears to want as his successor, Mr Joe Harmon, was defeated along with Mr Basil Williams for the chairmanship of the party by Ms Volda Lawrence. While Mr Granger and his right-hand man have no political base, a critical disadvantage in any democratic polity, Ms Lawrence is widely acknowledged to have been responsible for bringing in the vote in South Georgetown, where she is very popular.
The current Leader of the PNCR is no demagogue – which it must be said, is a virtue in a country like this where demagoguery is the enemy of rational political solutions – but at the same time he is no communicator either, never mind his past journalistic experience. As President, he was singularly averse to press conferences, and at the party level he has been accused of not making an effort to connect with members of the hierarchy. In addition, as was also demonstrated during his presidency, he lacks the flexibility of mind to effect compromises, is sensitive to criticism and seemingly holds loyalty as the only political virtue worthy of reward. Perhaps emerging from years of military experience he veers toward acting on his own advice and ignoring contrary views, whatever their merits.
His chosen Leader of the Opposition has not enhanced his chief’s reputation, since Mr Harmon is unrelievedly uninspiring, and even more than his boss, lacks political sense. Furthermore, he too is not well known to the party base, and only came to public notice when he was appointed a Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary in the coalition government. It is not that Mr Granger is an unintelligent man; far from it in fact. It is just that he lacks the skill set necessary for the post he holds in this country’s political firmament. And now what many senior members of the PNCR see as his failings are beginning to produce a concerted reaction.
It had all been building for some time. As Representative of the List Mr Granger omitted to name various party stalwarts as parliamentarians, including Chairman Volda Lawrence. A divergence in approach was exemplified in West Coast Berbice last year too, when Messrs Granger and Harmon went to the area and were seen as adopting an inciteful posture in relation to the protests, while Ms Lawrence managed to calm the situation.
There were some protests outside Congress Place, in addition to which there were a number of fairly explicit letters from diaspora members of the party, one of whom, Mr Basil Blackman, an executive member and financier of the PNCR, resigned. “Several key decisions do not sit well with me,” he wrote, “and as such I feel as though the executive no longer serves its mandated purpose since decisions are made without consultations.” Then there was the exodus of former adherents from the fold, more especially Ms Thandi McAllister, a 25-year party veteran and executive member. At the time of her departure she alluded to the fact that the leadership was ill-suited to the fulfilment of young people’s aspirations, the enhancement of the party’s supporters and the advancement of the nation.
None of this seemed to have had much effect on Mr Granger, least of all suggestions that he should resign.
But the issue which brought what was essentially a party power struggle into the full glare of public notice, was Mr Granger’s decision to admit two parties – the Equal Rights and Justice Party and the Guyana National Builders Movement − to APNU. According to the unsigned statement from members of the executive, this was in defiance of a central executive directive to put on hold any further involvement of the PNCR with APNU until the status of that partnership had been fully discussed and decisions on the way forward had been taken. As noted above, the statement also referred to the newcomers as “shell parties”, and asked rhetorically whether members would “abide by the Constitution of our great Party” or “accept these breaches of our constitution and unilateral decision making?” They went on to say that the Leader would “not be allowed to reduce the PNCR into a One Man Show.”
This is clearly a leadership challenge, but to change the leader the challengers need a Congress to be held. While they have promised their constituency that one will take place this year, and have been canvassing around the country according to the statement, it is not certain as yet whether this can be achieved. So far, Mr Granger and General Secretary Amna Ally have managed to prevaricate. They are in no doubt about the main purpose of such a Congress, and given their procrastination, it must be concluded that the Leader is by no means confident he would emerge triumphant from any contest.
No Congress was held last year because of the pandemic, and in April Mr Granger indicated that a sub-committee had produced a report with guidelines and recommendations for the holding of one this year under Covid protocols. This report has still not been presented to the central executive more than three months later.
It is difficult to know how the central executive splits. How many members, for example, were the authors or at least, supporters of the document which was released last Thursday? Of those members who endorsed it, Stabroek News located two – Mr Aubrey Norton and Dr Richard Van West-Charles. Ms Volda Lawrence indicated her support for the statement yesterday. Others contacted by this newspaper, such as Messrs Christopher Jones and Ganesh Mahipaul either did not know of it, or in the former’s case, additionally did not give it his backing. Presumably as time goes on more information will percolate into the public domain.
While those outside the party will inevitably suppose that the challenger for the leadership will be Ms Lawrence, it would be naïve to suppose that she will be the only one, or even that she will run at all. Her problem is that she comes with baggage, since last October she was charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with the aftermath of the 2020 election. While prima facie she would appear to be the frontrunner, she would have to come to a decision as to whether those charges could cause difficulties for the PNCR further down the line. It might be observed en passant that there is nothing in the central executive statement alluding to Mr Granger’s decision to lead the party into refusing to recognise the validity of the March 2nd 2020 poll.
Whether the Chairman decides to run or not, there are certainly others in the party who harbour ambitions for leadership, and it may be that Mr Granger entertains the uncertain hope that if there are enough candidates delegates will be split, allowing him to sneak through. The authors of the statement said that there had been meetings with the party’s membership across the country to inform them of the state of the party and calling on them to join together and save it. It is one thing, however, to agree on what you don’t want, and quite another to agree on what should replace it.
At the level of the delegates Mr Granger will certainly find it difficult to drum up support, because, as mentioned earlier, he has no political base. He became Leader initially with the help of Mr Robert Corbin, who appears to have now withdrawn from active day-to-day politics. In any case, this time around one cannot avoid the suspicion that he would not necessarily be easy with the direction which the party has taken.
As is his wont, Mr Granger has had nothing to say about the statement from the central executive. At the next meeting of that body, however, he will have to face his critics.
