Leader of the PNCR Aubrey Norton has finally spoken on the inflammatory and racist statements made by Mr Tacuma Ogunseye in Buxton the week before last. At a press conference on Thursday he was quoted as saying: “The opposition believes that Mr Tacuma Ogunseye’s right to free speech must be respected even though we believe that his language could have been better chosen. The choice of his language is his preserve.” In Mr Norton’s view Mr Ogunseye had “accurately described the situation,” but “probably out of frustration he went a little too far.”
In the first place the problem was not with the speaker’s language but with the substance of what he said, and its meaning was not capable of misinterpretation. In the second place, it was not a matter of going ‘a little too far’, it was a matter of moving outside the parameters of the law. And as for Mr Ogunseye’s right to free speech being respected, in this particular instance he had no such constitutional cover. Perhaps someone in the party with legal knowledge could direct the PNCR Leader’s attention to Article 146 of the Constitution dealing with freedom of expression. The third clause in that article states: “Freedom of expression in this article does not relate to hate speeches or other expressions in whatever form, capable of exciting hostility or ill-will against any person or class of persons.”
It would appear that Mr Norton was at the Buxton public meeting because he had been invited by the WPA to speak. Whether he addressed the gathering before Mr Ogunseye did, or afterwards, he did not say, but even if it was afterwards it is reasonable to assume he raised no objections to what the WPA executive member had expressed at that forum, an omission, if it occurred, which would do him no credit. At a minimum he should not allow himself and his party to be associated with a violent government overthrow, nor with incitement to ethnic hatred.
The largest opposition party in the country is the PNCR. The APNU format still equates essentially to the PNCR, because the other parties associated with it are negligible in numerical terms. That applies as well to the WPA which is no longer in APNU, and although it may conceivably be entrenching itself in Buxton, countrywide at the moment it has no following to speak of. Mr Norton who claims to represent African Guyanese that he says are discriminated against by the government, might nevertheless be nervous about the militancy of the WPA, which could be perceived as moving in on the PNCR political turf.
When Mr Norton became Leader of the PNCR in December 2021 he did not seek to convey the impression that the party only represented African Guyanese; he gave a more inclusive description in which Indians could find space. At the moment, however, he is perceived as a leader who represents his base constituency, which in racial terms accounts for well under a third of the total population. It might be noted that in the last election the PPP/C only secured a majority of one in Parliament, which, the independent seat notwithstanding, meant that just under half the electorate voted for APNU+AFC. It is true that this was a coalition, but it is by no means clear that the AFC brought any substantial constituency to the arrangement, or even if it has any constituency to speak of at the present time.
As has been pointed out by many commentators no government gets into office nowadays on the basis of the votes from a single ethnic group, including the PPP, whose racial base accounts for under 40% of the inhabitants of this land. Representing those who do not support the government, therefore, means appealing to a variety of ethnic sectors, including the Indigenous people on whom the PPP/C depended to assist them into office.
If Mr Ogunseye is living in fantasy land if he thinks Western nations will tolerate a coup d’état here let alone the degree of force which would be necessary to maintain usurpers in power, Mr Norton has to recognize that a lot of rebuilding will be required in his party if it is ever to overcome the disaster of the eighteen months or so following the loss of the confidence vote in Parliament at the end of 2018. And that means at a minimum the public rejection of a violent overthrow of government, and a willingness to work within a democratic framework. He would also have to put in some serious work among other groups in addition to African Guyanese. Whatever little trust APNU garnered which allowed it to come to office in 2015, it has since lost. The first thing the PNCR Leader has to face, therefore, is that the future means either democracy or the contraction of his party as a political entity.
Which is not the same thing as to say that the PPP/C is democratic; it is not except in relation to free and fair elections.
But there is something else too. The post of party leader while certainly important in the local political universe is not something in which the state has an interest. But Mr Norton is more than a party leader, he is also Leader of the Opposition which is a constitutional position in which the state certainly does have an interest. From his status in Parliament he has a role to play in the governance of this country and as such he cannot associate himself with wild anti-democratic talk or he shouldn’t be there.
When Mr Norton was first appointed in April last year he appeared to have a grasp of what his responsibilities entailed. He said that some of his priorities were to “ensure we hold the government accountable, to ensure we scrutinise what the government is doing, and ensure we go out into the villages and communities to understand the concerns of the people and understand them. We are elected to represent the people, scrutinize the government, push for transparency, [and] ensure accountability. We are going to do just that.”
While as mentioned above there has been a lot of talk from him about discrimination against African Guyanese there has been relatively little on ensuring transparency and accountability, and certainly nothing anywhere near approaching a sustained campaign. But in a country where so much oil money is around, where there is a dearth of autonomous institutions to monitor government and hold it accountable, and where the administration itself consistently erodes the institutions which do exist, fails to follow the rules, the law and even the Constitution, it is vital there be an active opposition to make its voice heard in a consistent way.
The society in which we live nowadays is so much more complicated than it used to be, and governing it is inevitably more of a challenge. Owing to the brain drain we do not have the kind of expertise available to meet the complex demands imposed by an oil economy, and in consequence decisions are being made many of which are not in the best interests of the nation. These decisions will come to affect not just African Guyanese, but all inhabitants whatever their ethnic origins. The responsibility of a Leader of the Opposition relates to all of them and not just one segment of the citizen complement. But it seems it is not just the government which is short of persons of merit in their field, so is APNU.
Much of the criticism about government decisions in relation to extractive industries, to cite a major example, has come from independent commentators whom the government has dismissed in a disparaging fashion. Other than that it has sometimes been the AFC which has spoken out before Mr Norton’s spokespersons get around to it, if they do at all. He did announce he would agree to the appointment of the current acting Chancellor and Chief Justice, but substantive appointments to these posts have still not been made by the President, despite the constitutional requirement that he do so. Other criticisms have been piecemeal, although there were two made by Mr Elson Low, an advisor to the Opposition Leader’s Office, at Thursday’s press conference.
If the PPP has always been averse to employing anyone on the basis of merit rather than loyalty, and talented sycophants are not all that common, the PNCR for rather different reasons is nowadays also seemingly devoid of people with certain kinds of ability. (The AFC gives the impression of being a little less deficient in terms of technical skills.) But it has a large diaspora into which it can tap into for help on specialised matters.
In the first instance what the opposition needs is a coherent strategy for addressing a whole range of issues where the government is in default of, or in breach of the law, rules or conventions. It can seek the views of independent experts, both local and foreign, and solicit help in crafting statements where these require some technical input. There is no point in speaking out only now and again; the country needs a systematic approach and the government has to be constantly required to address the criticisms. In addition, the opposition should start turning its mind to the matter of constitutional reform. Apart from the illegality of Mr Ogunseye’s statements, they lead to a dead end. As Leader of the Opposition Mr Norton should recognize this, and start working on strategies to make this corner of the world a better place for all those who make it their home.
