Those of us who set out to criticise Corbin can at least do it with some degree of fairness

Feb 04, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Freddie Kissoon’s article which appeared in Kaieteur News, dated 29th January 2009 bearing the heading “Guyana’s future under the PNC’s hands”, presented a paradoxical drift.
In his article, Freddie alluded to a comment made by one Andrew Hicks, a member of the Vincent Alexander task force, who is reported to have told the press that David Granger or Carl Greenidge should become leader of the PNC.
Clearly, these two names mentioned are credible individuals who, like Robert Corbin, have been most supportive and helpful in fostering the work of the PNC. However, since Freddie did not divulge any other information Vincent’s surrogate would have espoused to the media, I am not sure what else was said. But I do find it quite odd that none of the members of Team Alexander see themselves fit for PNC leadership. Not even Alexander himself? One would have expected that since Team Alexander (TA) had a candidate in Vincent Alexander to lead the PNC that his name would have been the first to be mentioned, by Hicks, as a potential leader of the PNC.
So Freddie should have asked this most obvious question: is Vincent Alexander no longer interested in the leadership or was he and his team just out on a mission to denigrate Corbin’s image or like the boys say “play politics to see what yuh catch?”
Since it appears that the mission of TA has changed from a challenging one to one aimed at creating an atmosphere to promote further internal dissent in the PNC, TA has probably rendered the PNC a party of the pass. It is now left to see whether this strategy will fly with the members.
Further, I do not believe the judgment of the two gentlemen named by Hicks is impaired nor do I think these men are naïve towards the culture of the party, nor are they obsessed with power. Therefore, this particular strategy, adopted by TA needs to be reviewed; its intended negative consequence will only cause them to appear as a panicking bunch, whose only objective is to further damage Burnham’s party, and to alienate them more from its base.
I am certainly disappointed that this bunch of once potential leaders have resorted to such inimical and selfish tactics; this certainly projects them as “sour losers”.
Still on the names touted in the article, why didn’t Hicks or Freddie mention Richard Van West Charles, Aubrey Norton, or Basil Williams as potential party leaders? They at least must know of Van West’s (Baby Doc) intention to oust Corbin from leading the PNC. I believe it is reasonable to throw the man’s hat in the ring, even if they believe he doesn’t have a chance?
In the article, Freddie Kissoon, opined that: “I don’t believe the PNC can win the battle on its own. But if it goes into the battle with an Obama-like character and co-exists with a Third Force comprising the merger of the AFC, GAP, Peter Ramsaroop, Red Thread, Rupert Roopnarine, Moses Bhagwan, CN Sharma, and others, the PPP will lose both the parliament and the presidency”. Now, this is where I am disappointed with Freddie, who claims to be one of the most experienced Guyanese in observing and participating in Guyanese politics. Clearly Freddie did not pay attention to what transpired before the last election.
One can argue back and forth as to how Robert Corbin is not doing much as Opposition Leader, but those who are fair in their assessment of his performance when he advanced to the helm of the PNC will gave the man the credit where it is due.
The same third force concoction Freddie advanced was initiated by Corbin before the 2006 election; most of the names of people, and organisations he mentioned were part of the plan.
It was for this reason that the PNC went into the campaign and election with the name PNCR-One Guyana (PNCR-1G). The unfortunate thing is that the body disbanded shortly before the 2006 election, leaving the PNCR and Corbin to make a last minute decision to decide whether to contest the election, after their partners pulled out, because of petty bickering.
There are all sorts of rumours as to what caused the fall out. Some argued that certain men wanted to be the presidential candidate, when they have no constituency; others started arguing for senior government position before the victory; others saw themselves as more appealing to the masses and some people claimed that the break-up was orchestrated by the PPP/C who worked on the ego of some of these big men.
It was also claimed that many of the PNCR members and PNCR supporters felt that the presidential candidate should come from the PNCR, since it was their party that had the largest constituency and organisational structures in all regions.
The jury might still be out on the real reason for the fall-out, but the point is Freddie ought to have known that Corbin has done what he is now promoting, so the question is, what different will happen this time around? Are these people now more politically mature? Freddie should research this and pass on the findings.
However, there is one thing I would agree with Freddie Kissoon on and that is the point he made when he stated that had there not been a so-called third force (AFC) at the last election, the PPP/C would have lost the presidency and its parliamentary majority. When the third force was formed the founders stated that their party will break the gridlock between the two major parties and will break the parliamentary monopoly of either the PNCR or the PPP/C.
However, what ended up happening was that the PPP/C came out with an overwhelming majority of 51% leaving the rest to the PNCR and the other forces; it was the PNCR that was hurt by the third force not the PPP/C since there was no real shift in the voting pattern of the PPP/C supporters. In fact, according to the PPP/C, Chairman of the AFC Khemraj Ramjattan was not able to deflect any of the Indian votes to his party. The evidence indicated that it was the PNCR supporters who rallied to the AFC and caused them to gain five seats in the parliament.
This is a situation that the PNCR and its leadership cannot afford the next time around.
However, what would be the worst case scenario for the PNCR is for Corbin to demit office. Unlike what some of the advocates feel, I believe that once a leader has got the overwhelming support of his members and supporters it will be difficult for any new leader to emerge and galvanize the same or more support from the party base.
It is for the PNCR to devise the best strategy as to how it can be more effective and make its leader more appealing to the masses.
No successor to Corbin at this time will shift the paradigm, unless he, Corbin, endorses that person, and even so it will not be an automatic solution to winning the next election, so let’s be realistic.
It appears that more and more Corbin is demeaned by his critics, the more resolute the members become in their support of his leadership.
And while I am not a member of the PNC, nor a fan of Robert Corbin, I have to admit that the man has shown some amount of stellar leadership. He has embraced many paths to reconcile the sharp differences that exist in the country. In fact, many of those who now lambaste him in the media had praised him earlier for his demonstration of leadership at a time of great chaos.
I believe that there are short comings in his strategy but I do not believe that these are sufficient to render him ineffective. Those of us who set out to criticise him can at least do it with some degree of fairness. I still believe he is the pillar holding the PNC together.
Carvil Carrington

---

---