Will Dr. Van-West Charles lead mass-based agitation if political dialogue fails?

Jan 12, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

In your news article, “Dr. Van-West Charles free to challenge for party leadership – Corbin,” (January 10), Opposition and PNC Leader, Mr. Robert Corbin, said that, “Any member of the party is free to contest the leadership of the party, as long as the outlined procedures are obeyed.”

He added, “Our party doesn’t operate in a way in which people decide that they want an office; it’s the members of the party who decide who they are nominating.

If and when the members exercise that right, then I’ll be able to exercise my judgment based on the members’ recommendation.”

Well, since he has ventured to go public about the procedure for contesting leadership of the party, he needs to tell the public what procedure Mr. Vincent Alexander violated in his own bid to replace Mr. Corbin, resulting in Mr. Alexander being blocked and even singled out for disciplinary action.

Weren’t there members of the party who decided to support and nominate Mr. Alexander? Or is it that certain members did want Mr. Alexander to vie for party leadership, but Mr. Corbin decided “to exercise my judgment based on the members’ recommendation,” hence the punitive response? And why should the determination of who gets to contest party leadership be left to one person in any democratic process?

Most of us would think that Mr. Alexander, who has been with the YSM before (I first met and knew him in) 1970 and rose through the ranks to become party chairman, would be pretty au fait with the procedures for contesting the party’s highest office. So something is not adding up in Mr. Corbin’s new position that okays designs by Dr. Van-West Charles to challenge him for party leadership.

Traditionally, the post of Leader of the PNC was never up for contestation, because the late Forbes Burnham, who founded the party, became the embodiment of the party.

A political tactician, he held that the party was paramount to Government, and ensured that the line of succession was well established, so his deputy in Government was also his deputy in the party.

Up until Burnham was succeeded by Hoyte, there never was a challenge to the person holding Party Leader post.

That almost changed, though, during the PNC Congress held in December, 1985, when certain supporters of Hamilton Green allegedly sought to displace Hoyte by placing Green’s name into nomination for Party Leader.

The move was eventually halted, according to insiders, when party elders prevailed on Green to have his supporters cease and desist in their efforts that seemed designed more to embarrass than actually displace Hoyte.

The public never had the benefit of the unvarnished truth surrounding the entire escapade, but that is only because the party held the view that certain matters are internal to party members only.

Nevertheless, it might be good if those with inside knowledge can share with us what really went down.

Fast forwarding to 2007,

when the PNCR held its congress, we noticed for the first time that there was a publicly announced and visible challenge to the incumbent leader of the party when Mr. Alexander launched his bid.

Most of us, thinking that since free and fair elections were returned to the national body politic in 1992, thought that the political parties will allow for free and fair elections among their party members and leaders.

While the PPP pulled off its election of office bearers last year, not without its share of consternation, it was the PNCR that disappointed us with the hostile public reaction from Team Corbin to Team Alexander.

It not only sent a chilling message to members contending for leadership, but it also sent a confusing message to the PPP, with whom the PNCR wants to share executive power; and even brought back memories of Burnham’s authoritarian rule, in which no one was supposed to challenge him for power.

And since one of the ways in which Burnham retained power was by rigging elections through fake ballots, one has to wonder whether there is an element of truth in the allegation that there was a surge in the members’ roll leading up to the last PNCR congress.

Even Dr. Van-West Charles believed this, when he accused both Team Alexander and Team Corbin of “padding the membership list, pushing it to 23,000 members…”

Dr. Van-West Charles did not cite an authentic source, so is it possible that there are elements in the camp that are against both Corbin and Alexander and would prefer a third candidate, such as Dr. Van-West Charles?

And will he admit that padding the voters list and rigging of elections were part of the reason his father-in-law used the same PNC to retain power for 21 years, so this practice is not alien to the PNC?

Mr. Editor, with Dr. Van-West Charles reportedly seeking to make a return to local politics, most likely in the PNCR, Guyanese have a right to ask what are his agenda and motivation here. Is he doing this because he cares about Guyana and Guyanese? Or is he doing this because of a sense of political entitlement, seeing he is the son-in-law of the man deemed the founder-leader of the PNC?

Most Guyanese know nothing of his involvement in political life before his marriage to Burnham’s daughter. And while we knew he was Health Minister in his father-in-law’s Cabinet, the nation lost touch with him after he took up an overseas appointment with PAHO. We read no writings of his views on our political situation. Now, is he returning simply to lead the PNCR?

It is true that the PNC is in dire need of new leadership, but can he genuinely demonstrate to the people of Guyana — whether supporters of the PNCR or Guyanese in general — that he can resonate and connect with their frustration and anger? To return and assume leadership of the PNCR, without connecting with the still suffering masses, will come across as elitist.

Your news article reported, “The former Health Minister accuses the PNCR leadership of running the party based on press releases, rather than engaging in dialogue to address problems facing party constituents. He believes that if dialogue fails, the next step should be mass-based agitation, and he wonders why the Corbin-led PNCR is not exercising that option.”

I firmly agree with him that ‘if dialogue fails, the next step should be mass-based agitation’; but since dialogue has failed since 1992, and the PPP regime seems to be on a bull-run to dictatorship, then mass-based agitation is long past due.

It doesn’t have to be violent and destructive; but resilient and constructive in its objective. We need it now!

I close by saying that not only the PNCR needs new leadership, but so do the PPP and the Government!

There is a need for fresh blood and ideas if we’re going to emerge from this political quagmire into which the PPP and PNCR have managed to mislead voters for over half a century.

Emile Mervin

 

---

---