Van West Charles is indulging in ‘sour grapes’ behaviour

Sep 02, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Mr. Van West Charles’ ridiculous misrepresentation, (SN, Sunday August 30, 2009) of the just concluded PNCR Congress was simply appalling, but not surprising to those who took note of his quest over the past year to capture what he probably believes is his family inheritance.
If anyone takes the time to search the newspapers archives, it would be clear to them that Van West Charles cried fraud even before he started his campaign. It is now obvious that he was preparing a platform to explain and justify his loss. He was unable to substantiate any of his previous allegations about membership and cannot now substantiate any of the wild accusations that he has made.
He keeps repeating these false claims as though repetition will make them true. Ultimately, he merely comes off as a very sore loser who does not mind if he destroys the Party in the process of preserving his ego.
Van West Charles’ recent statements also appear to give credence to seemingly far-fetched, but widespread rumours, that his sole intent is to break up the PNCR and form a new Party, in spite of his claims that he just wishes to preserve the legacy of Forbes Burnham.
If these rumours are untrue, he will have to make a tangible effort to dispel them.  He will also have to demonstrate to the membership of the Party whether he is really interested in its development and the future of Guyana, or simply his own personal agenda and aggrandizement.
The recent Congress is only the second one that Mr. Van West Charles has attended in the past 20 years. His attendance at the one held in 2007 heralded the start of his campaign for leadership of the Party. It should be noted that, despite his claims to the contrary, for many years he was not even a financial member of the established Party Group in the Washington D.C. area where he lived. He only managed to attend that 2007 Congress because, at the last minute, he wangled membership of the Florida group in order to acquire delegate status, even though he never attended any meeting of that Group. It is, therefore, hypocritical of Mr. Van West Charles to make all these spurious claims of fraud, which he has made his mantra over the past few months.
Instead of all the negative rhetoric, he might have endeared himself to the membership by making some positive and tangible contribution to the Party to compensate for his 20-year absence and, in so doing, provide the basis for recommending himself for leadership. Instead, his campaign was based on public vilification of the Leadership and condemnation of the Party‘s systems and processes. Of course, he was never able to point to a single contribution of his, or personal attribute, that could qualify him to be leader of the PNCR.
Maybe, Van West Charles has to convince his financial backers and others that his efforts were fraudulently stymied, but he should give an honest account of all his actions. The members of the Party are fully aware of the vigorous and sometimes downright nasty campaign that he waged, but he seriously misjudged their mood, and was mostly rejected.  His last ditch action to withdraw and throw his support behind Mr. Winston Murray did not fool anyone. Everyone understood that there was a combined group vying against Mr. Robert Corbin and his team for Leadership of the Party.  The two-year long campaign was waged on the Internet and across the country, in every region. It comprised mostly a vitriolic and personal attack on Mr. Corbin and a few others singled out for the same treatment.
This all backfired of course and the “heavy weights” with their very deep pockets were defeated. They learned that it was not about money, but commitment, loyalty and sacrifice.
One very humble member at Congress, in a very impressive manner, made it clear that thousands of members give their hearts and labour every day on behalf of the Party, without asking for a cent in compensation or position of high office. Van West Charles and his backers should have understood that money cannot buy loyalty and win hearts.
Mr. Van West Charles made claims about not being able to access the delegates list, but he should explain by what means every single delegate to the Congress received, through the mail, a two page letter signed by him, asking for their support.
He had names and addresses, to the consternation of many, who were upset at what seemed to be misuse of confidential Party information. Many persons questioned why their personal information had been used in that manner, without their consent, and complained to Party Headquarters.
I was a delegate to Congress, sitting in the same row of seats as Mr. Van West Charles. I saw when he cast his ballot and, throughout the process of voting for the position of Leader, the only one for which he was present, I saw him sitting at the end of that row, next to one of the numerous ballot boxes.
These ballot boxes were strategically placed throughout the length of the auditorium and manned by staff deployed by the Returning Officer who was in charge of the process.
Each delegate was issued with one ballot paper to cast his or her vote and this was all done under the glaring scrutiny of the hundreds of delegates present.
The only time that anyone heard anything from Mr. Van West Charles was after the results of the race for Leader had been announced. He got up and indicated that he was declining the position of Chairman and others for which up to that time he had maintained his candidacy.
He had ample opportunity to publicly state his dissatisfaction about any part of the process to the Returning Officer, the numerous observes and all the delegates. Of course, he cannot pronounce on the remainder of the process because he left after he realised that Mr. Corbin had won by a convincing margin.
I, like hundreds of other delegates, witnessed a totally free, transparent and fair process, which was unnecessarily protracted because the hierarchy at Congress Place obviously wished to satisfy the myriad, last minute and previously unheard of demands made by Van West Charles and his team. In the list of complaints made to this newspaper, he criticised the entire process, from the roll call of delegates to the casting of ballots.
Van West Charles, however, had his scrutineers, like hawks, monitoring the delegates as they proceeded to be seated.
There was no objection to anyone, including the names of two persons that Van West had previously claimed were dead. Yes, I did notice at least two persons whom Mr. Van West Charles had previously claimed were dead, but I saw them alive and well. I am yet to hear of an apology by him to those persons whom he maligned.
There was no other complaint at the time of seating of delegates during the roll call, except for some persons griping about the need to be subjected to such a lengthy and cumbersome process.
It is palpably dishonest of Van West Charles to make those claims now, when he had full opportunity to do so at any time during the process. I also heard no complaints from any of his supporters or the 223 persons who voted for Murray.
In the final analysis, Van West and his team campaigned vigorously to wrest the leadership from Mr. Robert Corbin, but lost. He and his team visited many Regions, wining and dining would be delegates.
No one can fault him for his efforts, but he should be honest and admit that he was rejected by the membership.
His negative campaign strategy backfired and he is now indulging in “sour grapes” behaviour. In every contest there are winners and losers.
That is the way of things and life goes on, but it is shameful for the loser to attempt to discredit the process just because he did not win.
Instead of being so recklessly condemnatory of the process, he should take some time to analyse his missteps and demonstrate to the membership that he is not just a sore loser whose repertoire is limited only to claims of fraud, but one who can regroup and contribute positively to the organisation that he so badly wants to lead.
Mr. Murray at least was man enough to admit his loss and accept the results. The Party will also go on and no false and egotistic claims by anyone will be allowed to get in the way of the work that has to be done for its continued development and ongoing thrust to confront the current dictatorship of the PPP.
Time will ultimately be the best judge of the motivations of Van West Charles.
Howard Benn

---

---