THE FIGHT FOR THE PNC

Jul 28, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Once upon a time there was one PPP. Then Burnham decided that he was born to lead. He split the party and thus emerged were two parties going by the same name, the PPP. There was the Burnhamite PPP and there was the Jaganite PPP.
Burnham was unable to win over the Jaganite PPP and since the two sides could no longer see eye to eye, Burnham changed the name of his PPP to that of the PNC. This is how the PNC was born. It was born out of a split in the PPP.
Fast forward to today! There was once a party called the PNC. The PNC entered into an alliance with a capitalist group called the Reform. This was after the PPP had joined itself to a grouping that referred to itself as the Civic.
The Reform eventually inveigled the PNC to be transformed into the PNC/R. There were then and still are up to now, a great many persons who do not agree with the Reform being part of the PNC.
Some of them even dispute that the Reform is part of the PNC. But it is. And many have privately refused to acknowledge the Reform. They still speak only about the PNC.
After the loss of the 2006 elections where the PNC failed to gain even 35% of the popular vote, deep divisions emerged within the party. And a number of splinter groups emerged within the party. At the same time, persons began to capitalize on the weakness of the PNC.
In order to maintain control of the party an alliance was forged between the party and military and police veterans. These veterans have now overrun the party.
This has in turn led to further consternation within the leadership of the party because many old timers have questioned how it is that persons within no historic involvement in the leadership of the party could have been catapulted into high office within the party. This has led to resentment and deeper divisions more so since long standing members of the party and members of the party’s Executive were either forced to resign or limit their involvement in the party.
Numerous stalwarts of the party have been brushed aside. Persons not known to have been connected to the party before 2006 could have in turn risen to prominence within the party.
The formation of APNU has complicated things. While the other groupings apart from the PNC/R that make up APNU are considered as electorally insignificant, the very fact that they are part of APNU meant that places had to be found for them within parliament. These small groups therefore enjoy a disproportionate presence in the National Assembly. This too would have bred resentment within the party.
What all of these factors mean is that what today is being presented as the PNC/R is not what many of the long serving members of the party consider as the original PNC.
It is in this context that the leadership tussles between the Norton camp and the Granger camp must be seen. It is not tussles about who is more militant. It is a fight between those who wish to see the party be returned to its PNC roots and those that have taken control of the party and wish to ensure that it is not snatched away from them. In other words it is about a battle between the PNC and the PNC/R.
The PNC/R has prevailed for the time being. But for those who now find themselves on the proverbial sidelines, they have to ask, like Burnham did in the 1950’s, what is the next step. Is its feasible to stay within the party and fight? Can the desired change be achieved within the existing structures within the party?
Those who were disenfranchised at yesterday’s elections at the Congress of the PNC/R must decide whether it would be best for them to fight for change with the existing structures of the party or breakaway and form their own party, the PNC.
Their political future depends on the decision they will make. But there are many who feel that the PNC/R no longer represents the PNC as they know it to be and would like to see the original PNC emerge.
Will that happen? Or will Aubrey Norton turn out to be the latest sacrificial victim in the struggle for the restoration of the PNC?