Norton’s Leadership

Jan 31, 2026 Editorial, News

---

(Kaieteur News) – When David Granger lost the 2020 elections, he did not simply exit office he was politically dismantled by sustained internal agitation from the very people who now sit comfortably atop the ruins of the People’s National Congress Reform. Among the loudest voices calling for Granger’s removal was Aubrey Norton. Today, irony stares the party in the face. The man who championed “renewal” has delivered stagnation, contraction, and near political irrelevance.

Yet Norton continues to cling to the leadership with a brazenness that defies logic. Worse still, he parades before news conferences pronouncing on national budgets, governance and policy as though his stewardship has inspired confidence either within his party or among the electorate. For a leader who has presided over the steady disintegration of what was once Guyana’s most formidable political machine, this level of audacity requires a special blend of political stubbornness and shamelessness.

Under Norton’s watch, the PNCR has suffered an unprecedented decline. Once the backbone of national opposition politics, the party now sits reduced to a 12-seat parliamentary presence not because of some overwhelming electoral tsunami, but largely because of poor leadership, internal fractures, and the haemorrhaging of support. The emergence of We Invest in Nationhood, which siphoned votes away from the PNC at the last elections, was not accidental. It was a direct consequence of voter frustration, organisational decay, and the perception that the party had lost its moral and strategic compass.

Leadership is measured not by rhetoric, but by outcomes. Norton’s outcomes speak loudly. Scores of capable and promising party members have walked away. Some departed quietly, others publicly, citing frustration with his management style, lack of vision, and inability to unify the organisation. Instead of consolidating after electoral defeat, Norton presided over fragmentation. Instead of modernising the party’s outreach and messaging, he is allowing it to drift further into irrelevance.

What makes this decline more alarming is the political environment in which it is occurring. The PNCR is not only contending with a politically entrenched PPP/C administration, but with an evolving opposition landscape where the new WIN movement is capitalising on dissatisfaction with traditional parties. At such a moment, the PNCR cannot afford weak leadership, indecision, or ego-driven politics. Yet that is precisely what it has received.

Norton has not inspired confidence among supporters, donors, grassroots activists, or the wider electorate. His public performances often lack coherence and strategic depth. His responses to national issues such as the oil and gas sector are reactive rather than visionary. Instead of offering a compelling alternative government-in-waiting, he presides over a party trapped in perpetual complaint mode, unable to articulate a modern, forward-looking agenda.

Ironically, Norton has assembled a parliamentary team that includes competent, articulate, and politically agile individuals. That makes his continued dominance even more problematic. Rather than empowering this team to chart a new direction, he has remained front and center, overshadowing the very renewal the party desperately needs. If the PNCR is serious about rebuilding, it must allow these MPs to lead policy engagement, public outreach, and organisational reform.

At minimum, Norton should have the humility to step back into the shadows until the next congress. Leadership is not only about holding the microphone. Sometimes it requires knowing when your presence has become a liability rather than an asset. The reality is stark: the less the public sees of Norton, the better the party’s prospects become.

The PNC has reached a crossroads. Either it confronts the uncomfortable truth about its leadership failures or it continues on a slow march toward political extinction. History will not be kind to leaders who place personal ambition above institutional survival.

If Granger was forced out after electoral defeat, then basic political fairness demands that Norton face similar accountability. The party cannot continue rewarding failure with extended tenure. Renewal cannot be selective. It must be consistent.

For the sake of its supporters, its legacy, and its relevance in Guyana’s democracy, the PNCR must act, not tomorrow, not at some distant congress, but now. Norton must go. The survival of the party depends on it.

---

• APNU, David Granger, Editorial, leadership, Norton

---