THE DREAM OF A UNITED PPP-PNCR MAY STILL BE ACHIEVED

Jan 24, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Ever since the split in the PPP in 1957, Cheddi Jagan had always hoped to have united the PPP with the PNC. It was always Jagan’s wish to reunite the nationalist movement so as to institute socialism in Guyana. Jagan’s dream may still be achieved, albeit in the most unusual of circumstances.
In the seventies, after boycotting parliament over rigged elections, Jagan offered critical support to the PNCR after it was obvious that the PNCR was moving leftwards in its foreign policy orientation. Too much has been made of critical support which was not then a novel concept. The PPP was simply being strategic by not wanting to become an obstacle to the increasing state control of the economy and the insertion of the government into the socialist camp. Even though it had its reservations about Burnham’s brand of socialism and the motives for his shift to the left, it saw merit in supporting moves that would deepen these movements within the country, without abandoning its criticism of the undemocratic nature of the government or the excesses and mistakes it was making internally.
Today the PNCR is also offering its version of critical support. It is critically supporting the Low Carbon Development Strategy since it knows that if Guyana is to move towards a green economy, it cannot wait until the PNCR gets into power but must do so now when climate change is a major issue in global politics. The PNCR’s support, like the PPP’s critical support in the seventies, does not however imply that the PNCR is getting into bed with the PPP. The PNCR is on record as assailing the PPP’s human rights record and has also called for transparency and accountability for the funds received under the Low Carbon Development Strategy.
While the PNCR still proposes shared governance with the PPP, both parties are now preoccupied with internal divisions. A few months ago when a group emerged calling for a third term for President Jagdeo, the PPP made it clear that it considered these machinations as divisive and mischievous.
The PNCR is also facing its own internal problems and there is a group which from reports is calling for changes in the leadership. The PNCR is now saying the same thing that the PPP said a few months ago. The PNCR is saying that there are attempts to sow discord within its ranks. Like the PPP did a few months ago, it is also raising concerns about the persons behind the calls for a change in leadership.
There is a fundamental difference however in terms of how both parties are likely to respond to these machinations. In the case of the PNCR, it has a leader who has been, however controversial, elected at its Congress to head the party. The PPP has no identifiable leader. The PPP is in no such position. In fact it has a number of individuals who are aspiring to be the party’s presidential candidate and thus a number of candidates to be the party’s de facto leader. This makes the party more vulnerable.
There are divisions in both parties over leadership. But in the case of the PPP, the divisions are over differences in the relationship between the party and the government and the treatment of certain senior party executives.
In the case of the PPP there is an additional problem since from all accounts the party has been heavily penetrated by powerful business magnates who are wielding influence not only in terms of the abolition of term limits for the presidency but also in terms of appointments to the executive. This has not been an overnight development, however, since the party had long capitulated to the business class.
Both parties have to now accommodate the demands of younger membership. The PNCR has already seen the wisdom in giving high-level exposure to certain young members, while the PPP has been more cautious in this regard when it comes to leadership within the central executive and executive committees.
It will therefore not be unusual in light of the similar developments within the two parties for some form of cooperation to take place. The powerful business class behind the abolition of presidential term limits will also seek to exploit these divisions.
While there is no evidence that this powerful grouping is behind the paid advertisements criticizing the leadership of the PNCR, it would not be inconsistent with the objectives of that grouping to be hoping that the present divisions within both parties can lead to a political accommodation which can see the PNCR being offered seats within a PPP government in return for their support for the abolition of presidential term limits.

---

---