No spin can hide the facts about Granger’s performance

Jul 29, 2014 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
Messrs Mark DaCosta and Tarron Khemraj’s letters (“PNCR members can choose their leader wisely or foolishly” and “Granger is the best leader to build a multi-ethnic coalition at this point” SN and KN 22/7/2014) epitomise the politics of window-dressing as against the politics of performance. The former the country has had too much of, and the latter presents opportunity to rid this country of its deprivations that the gentlemen seek.
There is no party leader in Guyana that has never been credited with the ability to attract multi-ethnic support/votes – Mr. Desmond Hoyte was even given the sobriquet Desmond Persaud.  This say-so remains an attractive talking point and political pitch, accredited to all and sundry, deserving and undeserving.
Khemraj informs us that Mr. Granger is interested in constitutional reform, refashioning the role of president and prime minister, and changing what he calls the “pernicious constitution.” What Khemraj fails to tell us is that Granger is the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Constitutional Reform, but for the past two years has done nothing to have this constitutional committee function much less achieve reform. Likewise, Granger is attributed multi-ethnic ability and credited for increasing votes in 2011. What has not been provided is the evidence to make credible the claims.
In the predominant Amerindian locations, Region 8 was won by the AFC and Region 9 retained by the PPP. APNU recaptured Region 7 from the AFC, but made no inroads in traditional PPP strongholds. In 2006 the PNCR1G lost a parliamentary seat to the AFC in Region 10 and recaptured it in 2011. Had Khemraj looked inside the numbers, he would have seen as a point of reference the turnout of the PNCR’s base in south Georgetown was way below expectations.
Admittedly, in 2006, the PNCR1G received 114,608. Khemraj failed to bring to his analysis some impacting variables of this election, such as Robert Corbin’s initial position of “No verification, No election,”; ACDA’s public appeal to African Guyanese not to vote given its concern about this group’s prospect in the extant political environment; AFC’s decision to go to the poll impacting on the PNCR’s volte face, followed by the late Ms. Sheila Holder’s public admittance post-2006 that the AFC knew the Electoral list was padded.
The 2011 elections was one for the opposition to lose given the PPP misrule and abuse of the public purse and citizens. The political climate was made for the opposition, Granger and team. Closer analysis will note in 2001, with a less favourable climate, Hoyte won 166,090 votes. Said elections GAP/WPA won 9,519 and JFAP 2,824. If these numbers were at the minimum retained in 2011, APNU would have at least achieved 179,433 votes. APNU could have won the 2011 elections if it had worked to achieve what four parties together achieved in 2001! The PPP won the elections with 166,340 votes. APNU received 139,678 votes.
Khemraj may remember – in the 2001 elections – the PPP’s advertisement of a bus reversing; telling voters a vote for Hoyte/PNCR would be taking Guyana backwards. Thus to his view that “Progress was made during the 2011 election” such would only hold sway over the undiscerning.
It is said Granger’s “position on Linden demonstrates a dimension on his economic insights.”  From reports of Granger’s treatment of Linden and Lindeners’ reaction to his (mis)treatment of them, what “economic insights” is Khemraj talking about? Region 10 is considered a safe district for the PNCR and was recaptured in 2011 thanks to Aubrey Norton, Vanessa Kissoon, Sharma Solomon and team. But this region seems to get the brunt of Mr. Granger’s resentment. Where is Granger’s economic plan for this region, and what has he done, using the opposition parliamentary majority, to make it real?
In fairness, inclusionary democracy is not a political aspiration of Granger but a component of governance required by the Guyana Constitution. Granger could have helped the body politic had he practiced this and meritocracy, another attribute ascribed to him.
An analyst cited the WPA’s written concerns about his approach to governance (APNU and national) which exposes the inaccuracy of Khemraj’s claim. Another example is the side-lining of Dr. Faith Harding, a fellow presidential primary candidate, and exclusion of APNU’s hardest working MP, Mr. Carl Greenidge from the PNCR Central Executive, even though he has the power to co-opt members and campaigned on a platform that unity will guide his leadership of the party.
On democracy in the PNC that DaCosta credits him for, Granger inherited a structure in 2012. His management of this structure was under review with Congress this weekend and talks have already been made of his poor management of the party’s business, delegates and membership.
Party membership under his leadership has declined. Disgruntlement of supporters and members are louder. Mr. Granger ran on a platform promising a menu of measures in the party and has only delivered on the publishing of the New Nation.
On elections, Region 8, where the AFC received the plurality of the vote, the party took the regional chairmanship and gave APNU the vice-chairmanship. In region 7 where the PNCR/APNU recaptured the plurality of the votes, it took both the chairmanship and vice-chairmanship and excluded the AFC. On GECOM, Hoyte had created a policy where the smaller parties were given a commissioner as part of the opposition’s allotment. When the opportunity came with the death of Mr. Robert Williams, Granger did not allow the AFC to fill the seat. The Justice For All Party (JFAP) has since quit APNU, with Mr. Jaipaul Sharma saying the opposition did not give him the support during his run-in with Ms. Priya Manickchand.
On Khemraj’s view that Granger believes in the devolution of power to the people, he needs to explain APNU’s position that it will be contesting the local government elections, which is an aspect of our governance structure that seeks to achieve devolution of power. The PNCR under Hoyte allowed the communities to identify their leaders to run in the neighbourhood/village districts and the party contested in the towns. Granger’s approach seeks to centralise and control the people’s power in both villages and towns.
On meritocracy, in addition to being Leader of the PNCR and Opposition, and Chairman of the APNU and Committee on Constitutional Review, on the resignation of Ms. Deborah Backer, Granger designated himself the Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs. Applying the principle of meritocracy, Aubrey Norton would have been the choice candidate given his expertise in the field. And even though Granger holds this portfolio, his policy position on Brazil, China, India and immigration remains unknown. Mr. Granger wears five caps and has failed to perform adequately in any.
The examples Khemraj’s cites as offering insight into Granger’s economic philosophy evidently eludes critics, including the author of the claim, who himself found it difficult to educate the readership.  Granger, to his credit, is associated with the phrase “A Good Life for all” which seems more like sloganeering than substantive economics philosophy, which is the source of critique.
Contrary to Khemraj’s belief, there is no difference in the ethnic composition of protest led by Hoyte and Dr. Walter Rodney. Both had similar characteristics, i.e. urban based, predominantly African, but also included other races. Therefore the fear of Hoyte-led protests and the need to replicate Rodney-led protests should pose no problem to Granger.
Granger is no more multi-ethnic than any leader, present and past, with the only exception being ROAR’s Mr. Ravi Devi, who made public his desire to only represent Indians and comprised his leadership and strategy to this regard.
On a party’s political base, every party knows the importance of its base. It is the base that turns up and turns out for you, does the leg and spade work, knocks on doors, and will tarry when others wane, and often times others reap the benefit of their sweat/sacrifices. The base is a party’s bedrock. And in every base – because no base is monolithic in outlook or desire – there are some who present embarrassing and difficult times for the leadership. This is not unique to the PNC, PPP or any political party, anywhere.
What seems to be unique is the desire of some to have the leaders (notably for the PNCR) abandon its base rather than persuade leaders in all political parties to educate their base to respect differences in the other and the need to share space and resources equitably. This base ‘issue’ has reached the point where a base is openly being encouraged to suppress their right to protest against injustices lest they offend an economic class, even though this class has within its midst persons of the base’s identity.  This is an interesting ‘economic philosophy.’ It is also instructive that Mr Granger is given credit for the Amaila Falls issue – and not Greenidge who was the mastermind – but when APNU falters Granger is absolved from responsibility/accountability.
None of the persons who made a case for Mr. Granger’s re-election as PNCR leader have been able to do so on his performance. And this is because they too know that he has fallen short. Likeability or association does not equal development; performance does. Those who desire the politics of performance, having placed Granger’s performance under critical review and found deficiencies have made them known. No spin can hide the facts.
Minette Bacchus

---

---