Is the PNCR trapped in the past?

Mar 10, 2018 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

It was reported in sections of the media that by letter of February 12, 2018, the Minister of Communities, Mr. Ronald Bulkan had written to the Mayor of Georgetown, indicating that concerns have been raised at the level of the Central Executive of the PNCR about her public conduct. It was also said that the General Council of the party has called for the removal of the Town Clerk.
These reports have not been contradicted almost three weeks after they appeared. As such, it can reasonably be taken as being undisputed.
If the statements are true, then the Minister of Communities should not have written that letter. It is not for him or any other Minister to be informing the Mayor or anyone else in the municipality as to the pronouncements of the party which he represents.
A clear division must exist between ministerial functions and partisan political functions. Burnham, under the doctrine of paramountcy, never accepted such a division. Guyana, however, is now a democratic state – or so it is hoped- and there are certain norms which must be adhered to in relation to the separation of ministerial and partisan responsibilities
The PNCR may be trapped in its own past. But if it is to demonstrate that it can function in a democratic environment, it has to appreciate certain political distinctions.
The person holding the post of Mayor of Georgetown is an elected representative of the APNU+AFC which had a joint slate for the 2016 local government elections. But the post of the Mayor is a public office and therefore communication on partisan political matters must be done by the General Secretary of the People’s National Congress and not the Minister of Communities. Communication on public policy is the preserve of the Minister
The media has been quite silent on this issue, concentrating more on the subject details of the Minister’s letter rather than on the fact that it ought to have been penned by the General Secretary of the PNCR and not the Minister. The question to be asked therefore is whether the Minister was instructed by the party to write that letter and, if so, whether this does not suggest that the party has its partisan and ministerial marbles all mixed up.
Had the PPPC or any other party committed such as faux pas, there would have been condemnation from the PNCR and the AFC. Yet there has been nothing but silence on this issue from the usual suspects.
The sequel to that incident occurred a mere ten days after and involved allegations against a senior party official. The official was accused of trying to dictate the speaking order at a scheduled flag-raising event at Corriverton.
The police stopped the event on the grounds, that permission was not granted. But, according to law, no permission for the event was needed, just one for the use of a noisy instrument. The Commander of B Division is on record of having said that he did not give such orders. So who gave the orders and was it ministerial, political or police orders?
These two incidents – the letter written by the Minister and the allegations against another Minister in relation to the Corriverton flag-raising ceremony – raises the question was to whether the PNCR has shelved the doctrine of paramouncty.
The doctrine was first announced by the party’s Leader Forbes Burnham in 1974 and further elaborated by the Declaration of Sophia. It held that the party was paramount over all institutions of the state, including the government and the judiciary, and that the government was merely an arm of the party. In other words, the party was superior to the government and the judiciary. It was during the reign of this doctrine that the flag of the PNCR was flown over the Court of Appeal, as a reminder to those within as to what was expected of them.
The doctrine allowed those holding PNC party cards to wield great influence. Any ordinary underling flashing a party card could have state managers jumping. The doctrine led to the fusion of state and party organizations with the then Office of General Secretary of the party being located within the Ministry of National Development. So paramount was the PNC that the Guyana Defence Force even loaned guns to the Ministry of National Development, according to testimony, which was brought out in the Rodney Commission of Inquiry.
There is, therefore, a grave danger to the nation by the blurring of political lines. Party work must remain distinct and separate from official government work. Unless this happens, Guyanese may well return to the party card as a means to get jobs and other favours.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News