A brief conversation with Robert Corbin

Apr 12, 2011 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

I met Mr. Corbin on the street as he emerged out of the High Court precinct. The time was last Friday. The question put to him was why in the ongoing consensus talks among the opposition parties there is no inclusion of Mark Benschop.
Last week, at the Oasis Café, I put the same concern to Peter Ramsaroop who is a participant in those confabulations.
Ramsaroop and Corbin agreed that Benschop should have been solicited. In my short stint with Mr. Corbin on the roadway, I invoked the example of Mr. Keith Scott. Mr. Scott is a friend of mine a long time now. He will appreciate that I have my work to do as an analyst.
My point to Corbin is what constituency does Scott possess that would put him as someone to be included in consensus talks and not Mark Benschop and his Independent Party? Mr. Corbin made it clear to me that Mr. Benschop should be involved in the ongoing search for a consensus presidential candidate for the opposition parties. But who is doing the inviting? Enter David Granger.
Mr. Granger took a reflective look at this joint opposition pathway shortly after he was elected by the PNC’s congressional delegates (as opposed to selected) to be their presidential candidate. He undiplomatically inquired about the strength of the other opposition parties in the talks. It appears that PNC big wigs may have spoken to Granger and he has since left the topic alone.
Then Khemraj Ramjattan took a subtle dig at the joint opposition entity when he opined that he will accept a national debate but only with presidential candidates from political parties that have substantial standing. I think Ramjattan was saying he isn’t going to sit around the table with persons who may belong to political parties that have no meaningful membership.
Enter Rupert Roopnarine. He is quoted in demerarawaves.com as saying that the arrangement is moving slowly and there has been an urgent implementation of a committee to manage the process and accelerate things. So we return to the question – who is doing the inviting?
Mark Benschop’s Independent Party is yet to be approached. Then both Corbin and Granger went on record as saying that Benschop must be included. Peter Ramsaroop concurred. Again the question – who is doing the inviting?
Now we have a management committee. Here is where David Granger needs to answer some questions and I am pointing two inquiries to him. Is the PNC the main organizer of the consensus vehicle, if not why? Secondly, did the PNC supply names for the formation of the management committee?
Enter the PNC. Some people in the PNC are not talking but they have a grouse. If that instinct expands and finds a resting place in the hierarchy of the PNC then the consensus candidate pursuit may meet a fate similar to the Titanic.
What is this grouse about? Try as hard as you want to shut it out of your mind, there is a feeling in the PNC war room that the parties in the joint opposition confabulation are entities of straw and that they need the PNC to keep them alive. If you take away the PNC then these entities die instantly and will not even be able to present a list to GECOM much more win a parliamentary seat.
On the day of election, after the votes are counted, all the parties on the unity slate will at least have to be given a seat. It means there that they got a parliamentary placement that they couldn’t earn on their own. My honest feeling is that Keith Scott’s party would not have acquired a seat if he had gone without the PNC umbrella in 2006. Is it possible that if those smaller parties were to exit the talks and seek coalition with the AFC if the AFC would accept them?
Wouldn’t AFC personnel ask what strength they will bring to the election? It is a serious and formidable dilemma that is burdening the joint endeavour and sooner than later something will have to give.
I do believe that if we are staring a bank all of the partners have to bring something substantial to the table. Why should I invest my money in the bank and you who have no money have a say in the shape of things to come. Of course this is not exactly a powerful analogy but I believe it is instructive.
In the meantime, I ask again – who is doing the inviting?

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News