In an interview with this newspaper at the end of last year PNCR Leader Aubrey Norton said that the reality was that the PPP/C was the Government of Guyana. “I don’t need to recognise anybody,” he was quoted as saying, “I need to know that they are the government and do what is required in the context.” It was qualified, however, with the caveat that this did not mean the government was legitimate, and in fact he claimed there had been all kinds of irregularities in the election. That notwithstanding he made clear he was prepared to meet President Irfaan Ali at any time.
While this is less than the PPP/C was demanding, since they wanted an official declaration of their legitimacy before they would meet with APNU, it is the best that they could expect. It also reflects their own position during the period when the coalition was in office, since they had initially challenged the result of the 2015 poll in the courts, and although they did not sedulously pursue that action, former president Mr Donald Ramotar was still writing in the newspapers as late as 2020 that the election five years earlier had been rigged. By implication, therefore, they regarded the APNU+AFC government as illegitimate.
As for Mr Norton meeting President Ali, there are a few crinkles in the political fabric which might have to be ironed out first, although there is nothing in and of itself which would bar the head of state from meeting the leader of a major party. The problem is that while Mr Norton heads a party he is not the Leader of the Opposition; Mr Joseph Harmon is. Furthermore, he does not sit in Parliament because he was not one of those chosen by the Representative of the List to be an MP. To the best of anyone’s knowledge the Representative of the List is still David Granger at the moment, although he has effectively retired from party affairs.
The PNCR Leader needs to be in Parliament to lead the opposition members, and for that to happen someone would have to relinquish their seat following which he would have to be designated as the replacement by the Representative of the List. Under the present political arrangements, it would seem evident that he should be the Representative of the List, which would allow him to identify MPs whom he thinks should sit in the House of Assembly. In addition, of course, he needs to be the Leader of the Opposition, which would give him a formal standing within the state as opposed to the party, and while that would also require the concurrence of the AFC coalition partners, it is unlikely they would be in any position to raise objections.
It is a Leader of the Opposition with whom a President would normally negotiate, not the leader of a party in a context where he was not the Opposition Leader. That might be to encourage a hiatus in the party concerned, which would hardly upset the PPP/C, but would not be to the advantage of the PNCR or the coalition as a whole. It is true that Messrs David Granger and Joe Harmon operated such an arrangement, but this was in circumstances where Mr Harmon stood in relation to his leader in the political sphere in much the same way as he had done in the military one. In addition, it was no secret that Mr Granger wanted the Opposition Leader to succeed him as party leader, although as it has transpired, the PNCR members have not obliged him in that regard.
Where his objectives for the party were concerned, Mr Norton told our reporter, “First of all, one key priority is to unify and strengthen the party; that will be one of my immediate priorities. Next, an important priority is to essentially do what is required to check the excesses of the government and to make them accountable… My third is to begin the political work on the ground, with the aim of ensuring the party is on the ground and begin[s] to build an efficient and effective political campaign machinery,”
Unifying the party might not be as simple an exercise as it initially sounds, since Mr Granger had evinced a predilection for ex-military personnel, whose grasp of the norms of democratic politics was limited, and whose expertise in the various civilian posts to which they were appointed was generally deficient. It might be added that even in respect of the purely political members of his cabinet he showed no feel for talent. His legacy continues in respect of a very lacklustre complement in Parliament which for the most part lacks the qualifications to make meaningful and well-researched criticisms of the government.
And holding the government accountable, as Mr Norton says he seeks to do, is the main function of an opposition. If, however, some of the representatives he has in Parliament are not sufficiently knowledgeable in respect of the subject matter under discussion, or possessed of sufficient competence to advance meaningful criticisms, then the party will not be able to perform its primary function.
“I don’t want anyone to feel marginalized; that because they did not support me they will be marginalized. I want all to feel they are a part of this … If you are on the ground and are in contact with all your comrades, you[‘re] ensuring consensus. Persons are given responsibility according to ability and they spread out and share and empower,” we quoted him as explaining. His problem will be that some of those who did not support him will not have the ability to have responsibility either – responsibility they may currently hold. In the current conditions accepting the lowest common denominator in order to achieve consensus will not help the party; leadership sometimes means taking unpopular decisions about placements.
In terms of the country at large Mr Norton suffers from a huge handicap in relation to his personal history. He is certainly well known to the public at large, but his reputation is associated with street protest, not rational argument. For a variety of reasons he will need to make the transition to responsible leader, although the initial signs that he recognises that are ambivalent. There was his party in the National Assembly on December 29th, for example, involved in all kinds of unparliamentary behaviour, including Ms Annette Ferguson’s attempt to seize the mace. He was not present, but it is most unlikely that he was not aware of what was intended, and if anyone had any doubts, there he was in his interview defending it. He of course alluded to the occasions when the PPP/C had behaved in similar fashion, but not only does that not justify what happened, but it is also not the point.
The PNCR needs to sit down and have a lengthy discussion on the matter of tactics. We are into an entirely different era, and while neither of the main parties seems to have discerned that, it is the opposition which is in the best position to see the light and seize the day. The government, as is evident from its handling of the disastrous Natural Resource Fund Act, intends to proceed as it did for twenty-three years, without regard for any contrary opinion, however rational. But there has been a shift in our political firmament, albeit not a very substantial one yet, but a shift all the same. There are a number of civil society organisations and individuals – Africans, Indians and others − making their voices heard for the first time, and they are not aligned to either of the parties and so speak for neither of them. Their concerns, however, are national in character, and not contaminated by partisan features.
With all the avenues now available for contact and debate, these apolitical civil society groups are destined to become more important in our political life, and what they have to say and their criticisms of government actions could potentially come to dominate the debate. The one hopeful sign where the PNCR is concerned came in our report yesterday, when the party said that it welcomed the suggestion by civil society body, the Electoral Reform Group about the reform and restructuring of Gecom.
What can be said is that the party will make itself irrelevant if it cannot undertake serious research into policies and speak with a rational voice, and if all it can manage is physical action out on the street or in the Parliament chamber. It has to be able to hold the government to account in the Assembly and outside it, and for that it needs people of ability who will work in their field of interest. It might be added that this applies to the AFC segment of the opposition too which has been equally disgracefully behaved in the past. The verbal approach takes time and requires patience, but the older hands will remember when the PNCR was in opposition and there was a noisy House, if Mr Carl Greenidge rose to take Dr Ashni Singh to task, a silence would fall over the body. Even the government side recognised that here was someone who rose above rhetoric and knew what he was talking about.
The government will continue to try and ignore the voices, but as these become more insistent and more numerous, it will come under stress and eventually be forced into making adjustments if not concessions. The PNCR needs to place itself on the side of rationality, and make its voice heard too in the cause of accountability, transparency, inclusivity and common sense. Unless it can be seen to have changed its approach over a period of time, and devise defensible alternative policies which it is prepared to modify in the light of public criticism, it will make itself irrelevant in this new age, and it will be others who alone will try and hold the government to account. In addition, no Indians sympathetic to the PPP/C will be persuaded to join it, as Mr Norton wants, because they will not trust a party in which they see no fundamental and prolonged change.
Carpe diem should be the new PNCR watchword.
