On the absence of a succession policy in political parties

Feb 16, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

“Men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.”- Niccolò Machiavelli

Rivalries are a natural feature of the political process. There is competition between political parties and competition within each party. Internal rivalries can be intense where there is no predictable succession policy within a party, and especially where no clear-cut successor has been identified in advance.
One of the problems of mass-based political parties where there are charismatic and maximum leaders, is the neglect to make provision for when the maximum leader is no longer around. Without succession policies in these instances, problems will arise.
Unfortunately in Guyana, the maximum political leaders of the two main mass-based political parties have neglected to have clear-cut succession formulas within their parties. Thus, when Forbes Burnham died there was one leader for the country in President Hoyte and another leader for the party in Ptolemy Reid.
Problems soon arose when another PNC leader decided to challenge for leadership. Hoyte weathered the initial storm and led the PNC into the 1985 and 1992 elections. When he lost the latter, he decided that his political survival rested on him banishing his main political rival. He successfully orchestrated the expulsion of his rival from the party.
It was a Machiavellian move on the part of Hoyte. But he did what he thought was necessary. He did not court his political rival. He banished him. As a well-read man, Hoyte understood the choice that faced him. He either treated his rival well or crushed him politically. He opted for the latter.
Machiavelli had predicted once a rival was crushed and the interests of his supporters were not affected, these supporters would fall in line behind the victor. When Hamilton Green was banished from the PNC, there was an initial splinter of support that cost Hoyte some votes in the 1994 local government elections. But eventually the supporters of Green returned to the bosom of the PNC.
At the time of Cheddi Jagan’s heart attack, there was no clear-cut succession policy within the PPP. Realizing this on his deathbed, Cheddi tried to foist his wife on the party’s leadership by signing a note saying he wanted her to succeed him.
When she did, she knew exactly the threats to her power within the party. They had ill-advisedly shown their hand at a meeting of the Central Committee of the party. She also, but more subtly that Hoyte, set in train a process of political banishment for her rivals. Bharrat Jagdeo did the same when he was in power.
There is always a risk involved for those who challenge for political leadership. When you fail in that challenge, you must be prepared to be sent out into the political wilderness.
When Mr. Robert Corbin stepped down as leader of the PNCR, the same succession problems as in the past were reenacted. And so a process had to be found to identify a leader. It was decided that there should be open canvassing for leadership. This split the party into factions, with two main factions appearing.
No serious political observer should accept that these factions will only be for the purposes of elections. Even though the sides may close ranks in the interest of the party, there will always be political rivalries and tensions between the factions within the party.
The strategy used by the present leader of the PNCR was to embrace his rival for leadership. They are both part of the leadership of the party. There has been no banishment of Mr. Granger’s rival.
But was this the right strategy to employ? Or should Mr. Granger’s rival have been banished?
It was probably the right strategy for Mr. Granger to unite the party by embracing his rival. He was new to the leadership and could hardly have afforded to do otherwise. Also, any move to ostracize his rival would have impacted on the party’s chances at the general and regional elections which were not far off.
But can this situation persist? And is it helpful to the present leader and for the proper functioning of the party? Can the PNCR go forward under this new dispensation in which persons in the absence of a clear succession policy are allowed to challenge for leadership of the party? Time will tell.

Latest News

On the absence of a succession policy in political parties

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Welcome and Sattaur hat-tricks power West Ruimvelt’s emphatic win

Mominul, Jaker help Bangladesh avoid follow on

Rutherford’s stunning century in vain as...

Bentick’s hat-trick lifts YMCA to $1M and...

Final batch of tickets for opening match released

NSC to host National Awards Ceremony on Thursday

Features/Columnists

The business class also funds undemocratic parties

Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all

Too many sharks too close for comfort

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

On the absence of a succession policy in political parties

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]