Members should choose party leader and executives

Dec 18, 2021 Letters

Dear Editor,

Kaieteur News – Reference is made to Election of PNCR Leader by Oscar Dolphin (Dec 17) who favors Van West Charles. The system is stacked against him because he lacks wherewithal to get delegates to support him. A better and fairer system is having members rather than delegates choose the leadership.

The nation and the diaspora look forward for the process and outcome of Saturday’s PNC’s internal elections to choose its executive leadership. I am also certain that the government and the minor parties are watching to see which candidate or side will emerge victorious. Everyone I conversed with asked, will it be free and fair and transparent as I attempt to probe and predict the outcome. The general feeling is it will be a close race between Slate Joe Harmon and Slate Aubrey Norton. The third person seeking the leader position, Van West Charles, although having very good ideas, does not have much following.
Mr. Vincent Alexander is the returning officer. Alexander was a victim of alleged electoral skullduggery some years ago when he ran for leader. So was Carl Greenidge, who has declined nomination this year.
I believe Vincent will run a smooth operation.
The PNC election should reflect the will of the delegates. Regrettably, as it is for virtually all parties in Guyana, delegates choose the executives rather than the members. Political parties should consider empowering their members to choose the leader and executive rather than delegates who tend to be pliant towards a favoured candidate for leader with the expectations of rewards (positions, money, etc.). A complaint among members and supporters of a party is that delegates tend to be bought out to support a particular candidate for leader or a slate of candidates or they engage in what in political studies is called “horse trading”. It is more difficult to purchase party members because they are much larger in numbers than delegates and they vote their own free will.

Political parties should function democratically promoting maximum internal participation among members. They are important medium in a functioning (liberal) democracy as they compete with one another to govern the nation for a fixed period of time before seeking another mandate. They supposedly articulate the aspiration of their members and followers and seek to win over others. They advocate for and provide necessary welfare and development measures when in office. They have members and supporters who may come and go, but in racially divisive societies like Guyana and Trinidad, they remain perennial members or supporters based on ethnicity. They should be empowered to choose leadership in a democratic process. When parties function democratically, the electorate is likely to trust them and the electorate itself subscribes to democratic principles. It is not a coincidence that parties that limit internal participation behave undemocratically (seek to rig elections, etc.) in national elections.

Party members and supporters expect to play a role in the functioning of the party and be given an opportunity, if so desires, to be an office bearer in the party and or run for office in the country. Everyone must be given an equal opportunity to seek a position in the party as well as in the country, and the members must decide on the fittest person for a position. That is democracy at its best.
Regrettably, elections for executives in Guyana are manipulated especially through the delegate system. The leader punishes and rewards based on loyalty and sycophancy. In Trinidad, the delegate system was replaced some years ago with the leader and executives now chosen by the members – one person one vote system. Political parties in Guyana should consider emulating that system or the one in the US to choose leadership.

In Guyana, leaders are chosen and decision making carried out in parties in a top down system. Decisions are made at the top and passed down for implementation at lower levels. This is quite unlike in developed democracies like the US, Germany, India, etc. In the US, for example, party members choose an executive at the local block level, village level, borough, city or county, state, and nationally. The leader at each level is chosen democratically through maximum participation of members; executives at lower level get together to select the city-wide or state-wide or national leader. There is no purchasing of votes. The party members are empowered to elect a party nominee among several candidates for every elective office. In the US and other countries, the leader or President does not choose the party’s representatives to the legislature or the Prime Minister or Vice President or other positions. The voters or the legislature choose the head and deputies of the government.

In India, the law requires regular internal elections of parties. For a party to function and seek elective office in India, it is registered and must be recognized by the elections commission. It must submit a constitution to the commission which monitors whether it is following its own by- laws and the constitution of India. The law requires that a party holds election at every level from block to district to municipality to state and nationally. If a party doesn’t, it is advised to take corrective measures within a fixed period. If it fails within the given time frame, the commission can deregister it. Parties were de-registered. In Guyana, there should be a law for political parties to be monitored by an independent constitutional body and for it to hold internal elections.
In Guyana, positions must not be handed down by an all powerful leader. Political parties must function democratically, engaging and consulting their members on matters and involving them in selecting office bearers. There cannot be top down decision making as exists in authoritarian states with one party. There must be bottom up decision making or at a minimum two way decision making with the views of those at the top and at the bottom taken into consideration in decision making. A political party not based on internal democracy cannot claim ‘moralistics’ for proper functioning of democracy or complain about electoral fraud when itself does not allow internal party democracy.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram