Mr Aubrey Norton’s reputation was built on his credentials as a street politician. The problem is that the requirements of a Leader of the Opposition go beyond activities connected to what is needed to rouse a following, and Mr Norton does not appear to have adjusted himself to the transition as yet. There he was at the PNCR’s second General Council for the year telling his party to “slip into a campaign mode and to spread its messages not only in its strongholds but across all communities in Guyana.”
All opposition parties are in campaign mode in a basic sense, since they want to get into government when the next elections roll around, but in most democracies they tend to restrict their period of active confrontational campaigning to the period immediately prior to a poll, which nevertheless does not mean they cease criticism of a governing administration for the duration. However, alongside this they will also do the heavyweight work of presenting their vision to voters by enunciating their policies and outlining how they would approach problems if they were in office. The electorate is then in a better position to compare alternatives and vote accordingly when the time comes.
At least, that is the theory of the thing. All democratic polities have their peculiarities of course, and this one more than most. The ethno-political divide has distorted our politics in decidedly anti-democratic directions so that policies have become a secondary issue to ethnic solidarity. It is just that in this new economic phase of the country’s evolution with all its many complexities, raw ethnic politics is even more of an obstruction to development than it was before the discovery of oil.
And what Mr Norton meant by “campaign mode” was explained when his party held a meeting at Burnham Court conjointly with the WPA on the second anniversary of the PPP/C’s accession to office. He said they intended to call out injustices and divisiveness on the part of the governing party, such as the rising cost of living, corruption and the suspension of eight opposition MPs, among other things. “It is both political and ethnic discrimination, and we say it must end,” he told his supporters at the rally. “If you are Afro-Guyanese or Amerindian, you feel the brunt of them. We need to understand that if Guyana is to grow the PPP must go,” he declared. The last portion of this comment then became the rhythmic chant of the night.
The PNCR’s concern with the rising cost of living is certainly justified, but the Leader’s immediate response was that the opposition would not be attending the parliamentary session when the government was seeking approval of $44 billion in supplementary financing. “They are so cruel that they know so well that life is hard, got worse under the PPP. They are bringing a [paper] for $44 billion and not one cent in it to improve the lives of people by cushioning the cost of living,” he said.
This is fine as far as it goes, but what does Mr Norton believe the government should be doing to deal with the problem? His answer was that Guyana needed a new people-centred approach, and he went on to say, “We need structured policies so that our youth can develop; people-centred development that put resources into small and micro-businesses so that more of our people can become business people. We don’t want handouts. We want genuine programmes that will empower the people,” he added.
There is nothing wrong with this, although it might be mentioned that it has been tried before in one form or another with less than stellar results, but that is not the point here. It is a long-term approach which will do nothing to alleviate the current crisis that people from all ethnic groups are facing. In the immediate term, therefore, does the Leader oppose handouts in principle, or is he just critical of the biased way in which he has claimed they are being distributed? If he opposes handouts as a viable approach in this instance, does he have any alternative policies for the immediate term? If he doesn’t then he has no basis on which to criticise the government.
Then there is the matter of the suspension of the eight MPs, which is probably much less of an issue with the base which has more pressing problems to consume its attention, than it is with the higher echelons of the party. Even for the most devoted supporters it will appear a somewhat technical matter since it concerns the fact that the parliamentarians involved were allegedly not given the opportunity to defend themselves before the Privileges Committee which suspended them following their behaviour in the House.
That particular matter has now gone to court, but that aside, it does not negate the fact that in and of itself their behaviour was disgraceful. What is particularly unfortunate is that it came in response to an indefensible action on the part of the PPP/C which used its majority to prevent the highly problematic Natural Resource Fund Bill going to a Select Committee. In other words, the cause was right, the reaction was wrong, and now the attention is completely off what the government did, while Mr Norton spends his time not on the behaviour of the governing party, but on a peripheral matter related to the coalition MPs, who by anyone’s standards conducted themselves improperly.
An inability to concentrate on core issues in favour of secondary ones is not something which will convince the voting public of leadership skills. It might be added that in the first instance Mr Norton needs to instruct MPs about their behaviour so they do not detract from the focus on unacceptable actions by government.
The PNCR Leader also mentioned corruption, which after all goes back a long way and is something from which the coalition government was far from immune. No party in this country has ever announced a strategy for dealing with it, other than accusing the other side of being guilty of it. So is Mr Norton now going to take a serious look at the problem and come up with an action plan?
Then there are the Indigenous people which he mentioned fleetingly. What does he think of the situation at Chinese Landing in Region One, for example, or at Isseneru in Region Seven? Or is it that he would rather not comment considering that the miners of Region Seven in particular can be numbered among his party’s constituency? Never mind the generalities which are meaningless, what does he think should be done in specific situations like the two aforementioned and at Marudi Mountain in Region Nine, for instance?
As for the various allegations about discrimination and marginalisation in the allocation of resources like land, or in the case of handouts, the opposition has to realise that even if these are true, anecdotal generalities will not persuade anyone of their veracity. They have to start insisting that their members and officials go out into the field and start collecting data in Mocha, Kuru Kuru, Fyrish, Linden or wherever, and record it in a systematic and organised fashion. They would need professional advice in what form to collect and present it, but documented cases if accurately done – and they would have to be accurate, otherwise it would contaminate the entire exercise – will have to be addressed, unlike general accusations.
It should be added that the party should also open itself to recording instances of where Indians have experienced discrimination in some form, either for political or personal reasons. This should not just be about African matters if it wants to present itself as a national political entity. That apart what has to be iterated is that a true opposition does real work, both in terms of creating alternative policies and in terms of any proof there is about discrimination or things of that ilk. Campaign-mode blanket criticism really does not cut it, and Mr Norton’s earlier street style is inappropriate for his new post.
He has been around for a long time, and he knows well the character of Guyanese politics. Like the governing party APNU suffers from a dearth of real talent, and he will need to cast around for assistance in key areas. If he just continues on his current path he will face a real problem at the next election. He is already stymied by the coalition’s absurd adherence to the assertion that they won the 2020 election, which will not win him any followers among the more rational segments of the population, but if in addition he does not come over as a serious leader, it will just compound his problems.
The PNCR, whether in APNU form or otherwise cannot win an election on its own. It knows that from experience. It is talking about campaign mode, but it is not thinking about an election strategy. If it sounds rational and reasonable there may be room for third force elements to win seats and together with APNU deny the largest party an overall majority. If it speaks only to its own constituency, that conceivably may not happen.
The country needs a functioning opposition to hold the government and authorities to account in a professional way. A campaign mode of operating and rallying cries directed at Afro-Guyanese alone with the Indigenous population thrown in as an afterthought will not make for any feasible opposition.
