Richard Van West Charles has real challenges to becoming PNCR leader

Jan 15, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Emile Mervin’s letter published in Kaieteur News, dated 01/06/2009, titled: “Mr. Corbin has not delivered, but where do his potential replacements stand on issues?” is basically off target.
In his letter the gentleman failed to acknowledge that the writer of the letter he was referring to, Mr. Eustace Harlequinn, made some real valuable and insightful assessment about Richard Van West Charles’ potential fight to become leader of PNCR.
Mervin’s rush to defend Charles demonstrated how narrow-minded our thinking can be and this can ultimately result in our own calculated failure. Clearly, Harlequinn raised some general concerns which will be sticking points for Charles who will now have the devil’s job of convincing both party supporters and the general populace on why he is capable of replacing Robert Corbin as PNCR leader. Van West Charles is surely hoping to re-enter the political scene, this time though from a different angle and with a different purpose. The scrutiny, therefore, will come from all angles, as Harlequinn pointed out. He will thus have to prepare to address these real and hovering concerns of people if he wants to be a political leader.
Mervin asked whether Corbin is qualified to lead the PNCR.  The fact is the PNCR supporters and members have answered this question in the affirmative time and time again. The last such response was given at a General Council meeting only last month. If Mervin does not appreciate or concur with the members, then he will only have to respect their position – this is democracy. Or he can join the party, become an active voice, and lobby that Corbin be replaced. The answer to the question he asked resides with the membership, who have voting rights. However, the said question asked by Mervin will be thrown back at Van West Charles, so he will have to provide answers. And some of the answers reside in many of the issues raised by Harlequinn.
Mervin argued that the PNCR is the country’s main opposition party and therefore has to do much. This I agree with, but it is also true to say that, despite it is the main opposition party, it has its own internal rules, principles and objectives by which it must be guided. Unfortunately, those rules and principles can only be changed by those who exercise membership and not the general populace, a political reality that exists in every country from the most democratic to the most dictatorial. But of course the general public and mass media have every right to an opinion on what they perceive as the internal policies of political parties, and can influence how things play out within same. However, they must convince the membership, who are the key players to facilitate those changes.
But let’s get back to the issues Mervin raised in his letter.  He suggests that it is out of sync with issues-based politics to demand that Van West Charles account for his achievements as Minister of Health under the Burnham administration, a position I find quite troubling.  In fact in Mervin’s mind, Guyanese, rather PNCR members and supporters, should just sit and open their arms wide and accept Charles as a national leader, simply because he is re-migrating, or because he was Burnham’s son-in-law. No questions must be asked. In fact, I believe that the question is politically correct, and far from being personal. But I also endorse the view that Guyanese have every right to determine whether someone’s personality should impact their decision, whether or not to support someone for leadership. For this reason Americans prefer that someone who shares their general values is a strong candidate for President.
This was a battle Barack Obama had to really work through, having been branded with all sorts of labels. Talking about personality, I wonder if Mervin paid attention to the last U.S elections. If he did, maybe he can reflect on how many times the words experience, track record, in touch, background, achievements, among others, were used, as candidates and campaigns “fired” at each other. In fact, personality had a lot to do with the campaigns and this was not seen as a negative issue. In fact, the national media very early depicted Hillary Clinton, the then clear democratic front-runner as “too stuck-up”, as compared to a Barack Obama who was described as the more charismatic and open candidate. Then later she was described as more personable as she was able to reach out to the working class who connected with her message. So like issues, a leader’s personality is becoming increasingly important in the political field.  It was because of John Edwards’ extra-marital affair, which resulted in a child being born out of wedlock, that he was dismissed as Obama’s main candidate for Attorney General.
Mervin also asks “what Corbin achieved as Opposition Leader? I do not wish to take time to restate the man’s achievement, but I can direct Mr. Mervin to a Kaieteur News article dated December 21, 2008, titled: “PNCR response to attacks on the party and its leadership”, where a synopsis of those achievements was stated.  I advise that it would be in your interest to read same and check for accuracy, lest you make more comments which seem obviously biased, and emotionally based.
Mervin condemns Harlequinn’s mention of the fact that Carl Greenidge would be better welcomed by PNCR than Charles because Greenidge continued to show interest and support for the party, despite he worked outside of Guyana. This I do not quite understand: why can’t the people decide on those factors which will enable them to identify their leader? Just like the U.S citizens put a high prize on the their President’s commitment to good family values, Guyanese have every right to decide that their leader be one who is in touch with their sufferings, and not appear to be a prodigal son. Political cultures, traits and customs differ all over the world and the people decide what criteria to look for in their leaders. In the case of Van West Charles, his up-coming bid would seem more like an opportunist move rather than a genuine interest in changing the direction of the PNCR, and Guyana.
In a Kaieteur News Article dated Saturday January 10, 2009 titled: “Van West Charles free to challenge for party leadership – Corbin”, Charles was quoted as saying that he wanted the PNC to be more transparent and accountable for monies collected. Clearly this might be one of his key campaign issues, but the members will ask him how much of these unaccounted dollars did he contribute to the party over the past 20 odd years. So he must address his mind for this kind of counter-attack. He also made a number of suggestions regarding his preference for a primary system for determining party leader and that the elections be observed by non-party members. These are indeed fair ideas, but Charles must know that he has to successfully sell these ideas to the members who will have to vote to change the rules. So, like Harlequinn pointed out, his approach should have been more integrated where he worked with the people and current leadership in order to gain support for his ideas. He might also be asked why he didn’t recommend these ideas prior to wanting to become leader. I hope he has answers.
Charles also made damaging statements in the article identified above, when he stated that both Team Alexander and Corbin should be blamed for padding the list, and that if there is surge in membership at the time of congress it is corrupt practice. It is clear the man has forgotten the culture of Guyanese politics, maybe because of his protracted absence from the local scene. It is a given that at the time of congress enthusiasm and interest grows among members and people, who are eager to get involved either to be a part of the celebration or to canvass for their candidates. To say that increase in membership is tantamount to fraud is a demonstration of the man’s lack of knowledge of politics on the local scene. Can he remember what happened in the Burnham days, and did membership not swell at congress time? Did he consider it fraud then?
Van West Charles claims that the PNC is a press conference party and that mass agitation should be the way forward if dialogue failed. Where was Charles when Corbin led that massive march from Victoria to Georgetown, which saw thousands of Guyanese taking to the streets to protest the wrong-doings of the PPP/C in 2004? And does Charles know about the days and nights of protest against Gajraj, for his alleged involvement in a death squad operation? Come on, Mr. Charles, don’t be naïve; should you become leader of PNCR, what kind of mass agitation will you lead?
I think Charles and his comrades should see Harlequinn’s letter as a blessing and begin to prepare to respond to all those issues and more that he referred to in his letter.
He can probably begin by answering why he never found it important to defend Burnham’s name, that has been so tarnished by the PPP/C, who will ensure they tie him to Burnham like Obama tied John McCain to George Bush. Then he can move on to what qualifies him to lead PNCR, and then answer why didn’t the late President Desmond Hoyte appoint him to a Cabinet post in his government in 1985.
Alden Seargeant

---

---