The PNCR is the author of its own demise

May 10, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – There is a certain irony in hearing the APNU complain today about fragmentation in the Opposition. If there is one political force that should understand the dangers of division, internal warfare, and political self-destruction, it is the APNU itself.

Much of the fragmentation that now exists within the Opposition was not imposed from outside. It was created from within, particularly within the ranks of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), the dominant party in the coalition.

The uncomfortable truth is that the seeds of division were planted during the aftermath of the 2020 elections. And those seeds were planted by elements within the PNCR itself. The target of that rebellion was none other than David Granger, perhaps the most credible, democratic, and disciplined leader the PNCR ever produced.

David Granger understood something that many within his own party refused to accept. He understood that once GECOM declared the results following the recount process, there was no responsible path except to respect the outcome, however painful it may have been politically. Granger did not seek to hold on to power at all costs. He did not attempt to burn the house down because his side had lost. In a region where leaders too often cling desperately to office, that was no small thing.

But instead of respecting him for taking the democratic road, sections of the PNCR turned against him. There were mutinous whispers. Then came open rebellion. No-confidence motions against him emerged in party groupings.  Persons suddenly treated him as an obstacle rather than the man who had rescued the party from political irrelevance.

The irony is astonishing. David Granger was already preparing the party for transition. He clearly understood that leadership renewal was necessary. He was attempting to guide a smooth succession process while preserving unity within the coalition and within the PNCR itself. Yet rather than allowing him to manage that transition with dignity and stability, forces within the party virtually pushed him out. In doing so, the PNCR fragmented itself.

That fragmentation deepened over time. The divisions grew sharper. Relationships deteriorated. Many longstanding party stalwarts eventually found themselves alienated or forced to part company with the PNCR altogether. Newcomers also parted company with the PNCR.

At one stage, even the APNU coalition itself appeared threatened by the possibility that the PNCR might no longer remain part of the arrangement. That bizarre political manoeuvre reflected just how chaotic internal politics had become. A coalition that once projected strength and unity had become consumed by distrust and divisions.

Then came the run-up to the 2025 elections. Once again, the old hardened instincts within the PNCR resurfaced. The party could not find common ground with the Alliance For Change (AFC). Nor could it successfully arrive at a workable arrangement with We Invest in Nationhood (WIN). The Opposition entered another election cycle divided and weakened.

Now, there are those who will argue that WIN may never have truly wanted a coalition in the first place. There is probably considerable truth in that assessment. Its political objectives may very well have involved a completely different endgame. But even if that is accepted, the fact remains that the PNCR once again demonstrated an inability to compromise, negotiate, and build broad alliances.

And that is deeply ironic because the party had once successfully united the party and built a winning coalition. But the person who did that was David Granger and he was no longer around to save the PNCR from itself.

Before Granger, the PNCR was trapped in the political wilderness. Under his leadership, the party softened its image, broadened its appeal, and formed the coalition with the AFC that eventually won government in 2015. Whatever criticisms one may have of his presidency, there can be little doubt that Granger achieved what many before him could not: he created a practical coalition that took power away from the PPPC and did so democratically.

That achievement is now often forgotten by those who helped remove him. And let it also be recalled that the very WPA which is now bemoaning fragmentation itself had spawned division within the APNU+AFC government, including when it called on that government to apologise to its supporters.

Today, the Opposition complains about fragmentation. But fragmentation did not arrive by accident. It was cultivated internally through intolerance, political impatience, and the rejection of democratic maturity. The PNCR weakened itself when it turned against the very leader who tried to steer it responsibly through one of the most difficult moments in Guyana’s political history. Perhaps that is why there is now growing reflection about whether the party made a grave mistake.

If David Granger is well enough healthwise, perhaps he is the one person to whom the PNCR and the APNU should now turn once again. Not because he is perfect. No leader is. But because he demonstrated qualities that are now sorely lacking: restraint, discipline, coalition-building, and respect for democracy.

And in politics, those qualities are far more valuable than loud rhetoric and endless internal warfare.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• APNU, demise, Peeping Tom, PNCR

---