A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT

Feb 11, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The PNCR has disappointed. Faced with an opportunity to show that the party has democratised more than its competitors and is now a liberal organisation, the PNCR floundered. The party’s nomination process for a presidential candidate leaves more questions than answers.
It may be too late now for the PNCR to show that it is indeed practicing a higher brand of internal democracy. It has a deadline to meet in relation to announcing its presidential candidate and meeting this deadline will mean that it is not likely that there will be any time to address some of the controversies that have arisen over the nomination process.
Those who emerged from this process have been meeting with the membership in a series of meetings around the country. But the format of these meetings has discredited competitiveness for the top post of the party. Instead of all the candidates collectively addressing the membership, it would have been better if each of the candidates was allowed to canvass openly for the presidential nomination of the party, such as what takes place in the American system.
There would, however, have been no need for a primary as happens in the USA. Each candidate would have been free to run their own individual campaign, rather than simply having to settle into one general meeting with each constituent group forced to endure listening to each candidate outline what they would have done without really showing how they were better than the other.
In the American system, while there are many contenders within each party, each candidate runs his or her own campaign. The last time the Democrats had to field a presidential nominee, there were as usual many starters, but the field was eventually reduced to two persons, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. At first, it seemed as if Barack had no chance, but because of the adversarial nature of the political system, he was able to demonstrate that he had the better programme.
The benefits of this sort of adversarial system are that it allows the best candidate to eventually emerge rather than simply leaving it up to the party elite. It allows for the constituent groups to make a choice as to who they will vote for. And it helps focus not just on personalities but also on issues, and brings out the differences between the candidates so that the delegates can better make a choice.
This has been the area in which the PNCR has failed in its process to choose a presidential candidate. While it is appreciated that the party may not yet be ready for the sort of competition which marks the American primary system, it was hardly distinguishable what were the strong points that each candidate stood for and what areas each differed from the other.
We did hear a great deal about what each would do, but there was little in the process to differentiate the candidates from each other, for example, to show which side of the political fence each stands, and what economic philosophy each would embrace.
An adversarial process need not have been divisive; one suspects that the fear within the PNCR was that the party could have been divided if it had allowed a system in which each candidate was able to raise their own resources and to openly challenge the others.
Those fears, if they existed, would have been misplaced, because the American system has shown that while it is highly adversarial, it has its plusses for the parties. Big donors are not ever going to come on board unless they are fully comfortable with what a candidate stands for. A primary system characterised by stiff competition between the candidates allows for the big financiers to gauge the field and make the right decisions as to where their support should lie.
An open competition for the candidate does divide the party, as many fear. There was a bruising battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, but in the end after Hilary conceded, the entire party came together in support of their party and the candidate, Obama. The point is that adversarial competition within parties is not necessary a divisive force.
The adversarial system also allows for attrition, that is, for candidates to drop. This happens because the candidates are able to gauge their support. In the case of the PNCR, however, there is not going to be anyone declining nomination at this stage, because in the final analysis it will be the delegates to a Special Congress, rather than the general membership, who will elect a candidate. And so these delegates, regardless of what is said at the outreaches, are the ones who in the end still have to make a choice.
This has been a disappointing process within the PNCR, one that has clearly not galvanised the party into high gear, and has failed to identify any front runners. It would have saved the PNCR a great deal of time and effort if they had simply allowed the Congress to make the decision as to who leads, for this in the final analysis is what things have boiled down to.

---

---