Latest update May 10th, 2024 12:59 AM
Feb 23, 2009 Letters
Dear Editor,
Permit me, even at this late moment, to respond to Carvil Carrington’s letter which was published in Kaieteur Newspaper on 04/02/2009 under the caption: “Those of us who set out to criticise Corbin can at least do it with some degree of fairness”.
The missive seems to resemble the interest of a known “self-interested politician”, but nevertheless, I will treat with the writer.
The author stated that he was responding to Mr. Freddie Kissoon’s article: “Guyana’s future under the PNC …” which was published in Kaieteur News of 29th January, 2009, with a focus on how the capacity of the combined political opposition may be improved by a collective challenge to the PPP/C in the next general election, but it was an attempt to debate a proposition I made during an interview with the Evening News (reported on 26/01/2009) that Mr. Carl Greenidge and Mr. David Granger are two creditable personalities, among a battery of others with the requisite competencies to arrest the continuing decline of the PNCR from where it is, under the leadership of Mr. Robert Corbin and reengineer this once visible, militant and ‘in-touch’ political party for 2011.
I disagree with the writer’s pitch for pity which suggested that those who are part of “Team Alexander” have an agenda to destroy the PNCR, and the members of ‘TA’ are alienated or perhaps risk becoming alienated from the mainstream. I recall the following Tuesday after the broadcast of my interview, as I traversed sections of Georgetown, I was amazed by the number of persons, who are known members and supporters of the PNCR, who were greeting me with approval to express their support for my views and their frustration with Mr. Corbin’s leadership.
At one point, I felt as though as if I was conducting an organised political meeting among several minibus operators, hire-car operators and vendors in the vicinity of Stabroek Market. This is just another of several experiences of “THE EVERYDAY” for the ‘TA’ group.
Mr. Corbin’s leadership speaks for itself. I urge the writer to take note of this brief: In the 2006 polls, the PNCR lost approximately 50,000 votes nationally, when those results are compared to the General Elections of 2001.
Worse is the reality that the PNCR reeled from 85% (2001 General Elections) of the popular votes in Region No. 10 to approximately 55% (2006 General Elections), despite this region being all time touted as a major support base of the Party. Worst is the reality that Mr. Corbin enjoys ‘birthright status’ in this constituency; and was the Leader and Presidential Candidate of the PNCR. This regional constituency is historically known for high-voter turnout; casting votes in such numbers that are statistically significant (ranking at all times above 80% with the exception of 2006) in favour of the PNCR.
Carrington may later on offer an argument which attempts at blaming others, but ‘blame shifting’ is unhelpful to the cause of and the need for change, considering the present dilemma of the Party. Politics can be likened to cricket. In cricket, there is always a need for a ‘franchise player’ to garner support at the ‘gates’ to make the tournament profitable. Similarly, in politics, there is always a need for a ‘franchise leader’ to garner support for a political party at the polls, to make victory possible. Sadly, the PNCR, at present, is far from this reality.
Unofficial statistical projection, suggest that the major block of voters in the 2011 general elections will range between ages 18 to 40 years old. This group is projected to represent approximately 60% of the total number of electors who will be eligible to participate in the 2011 general election.
Of this group, close to one-third or 33% is expected to be ‘first-time’ voters, many of whom were born in the time of the PNC occupying the seat of government, but grew up under the PPP/C. This reality presents another dilemma to the PNCR, because this significant sub-set of the population has no formidable experience of the PNCR as a government, and today the PNCR seems unable to present itself as a ‘government in waiting’. Surely, a passionate and sustained implementation agenda for the PNCR “Yes Programme” could have offered up the Party.
Alongside this, there should have been a sustained strategy for the reinvigoration of the GYSM. Note must also be taken of this dimension of ethnicity. The PPP/C and the PNCR have historically attracted major support from the Indo-Guyanese and Afro-Guyanese segments of the national population, respectively.
Analysis of the results of the 1997, 2001 and 2006 General Elections show that the PPP/C has enjoyed a steady growth in the number of cross-over votes, ranging between 3% to 7% (small but statistically significant). Similar data suggest that the PNCR has obtained between 1% to 3%, but this comparatively small growth in cross-over votes attained by the PNCR is non-compensatory for the declining support for the Party, amid increasing political apathy.
Another dimension is the reality that most people are oriented towards a particular political party, based on their socialisation within the family group into which they are born. However, this seemingly universal behaviour is changing in Guyana, seemingly more to the disadvantage of the PNCR. Casual observation suggests that among Indo-Guyanese families the historical pattern of orienting younger members to the PPP/C is pretty much the same ‘today’ when compared to ‘yesterday’, but for Afro-Guyanese families this has changed. There is seemingly less emphasis on political orientation among ‘black families’. The structure of present discourses among the young seems to facilitate more openness to non-traditional political choices.
This argument can be factually supported by ‘recall evidence’ of the number of Afro-Guyanese parents and elders who, following the 2006 polls, lamented their conflicts with younger members of their households after learning of their decision to cast their vote in favour of the AFC or PPP/C. This change is equally indicative of the PNCR’s failure to work meaningfully with its own constituencies at the grass-root level. I leave the writer to reflect on the noticeable absence of the Party Group structures across Guyana.
The writer, while agreeing that my nominees are creditable, sought to question my reason for not including Mr. Vincent Alexander as a potential replacement for Mr. Corbin, more so as he was a recent contender for the Office of Leader of the PNCR. The answer is simple. I made no mention of Vincent Alexander, Winston Murray or Stanley Ming simply because these are persons, who indeed are all competent, have withdrawn from the leadership of the executive structure for reasons already known.
Further, as Team Alexander entered the campaign for the Office of Leader (PNCR), the group publicly declared its core values and vision for building a new political culture in Guyana. We explained that, as part of our vision, we are committed to a system and culture of governance at both the Party and State levels that facilitate self-renewal, growth and development and a system of governance which will systemically provide for the evolution of new interest and personalities, propelled by a set of core values that epitomize, fairness, objectivity, inclusiveness and generativity, thus allowing the evolution of new competent leadership personalities in a systemic manner.
Against this background, the requisite clarification is made. Certainly, my position is not consistent with the infantile suggestion made by the writer “to break up Burnham’s Party”. Something to note: the culture of American politics epitomises much of the values that defined Team Alexander’s vision.
It may be recalled that a significant section of the America Media and citizenry did call on Vice-President Al Gore to re-enter the presidential race in the USA elections of 2004 and 2008, but he did not. He explained to the media in an interview broadcast on CNN Television that his decision not to enter a second bid for the American Presidency was defined by the culture of the American people and the ethics of American politics. I am confident that this value and maturity helped to facilitate the evolution, growth and victory of President Barack Obama.
It is this and other similar values that Team Alexander continues to advocate as a ‘Cultural Model’ to enhance participation and generativity within the body politic of Guyana’s political landscape. I therefore restate my response to the question: “If not, Mr. Corbin, then who?”, which was asked by Journalist Michael Younge. “There is a battery of creditable personalities capable of leading the PNCR into victory at next general elections…the Party must extend consideration beyond its membership register. It must work towards a consensus nominee, since another internal contest may further fracture the organisation of the PNCR…”
At this time, I add, in addition to the names of Carl Greenidge and David Granger, other serious suggestions are welcomed. The additional nominees of the writer are also recognised. Let the debate continue. If the PNCR fails to do what is of necessity, the citizens will judge the party harshly in 2011.
Contextually, I agree with the writer that “no successor to Corbin at this time will shift the paradigm unless he, Corbin, endorses that person and, even so, it will not be an automatic solution to winning the next election”. This is true because the consistent hemorrhaging of the PNCR under Mr. Corbin has manifested into a diminished membership and organisational base.
Nevertheless, this can be arrested by the early exit of Robert Corbin. Indeed, securing victory requires a strong party organisation and election machinery, but neither of these is present in the PNCR of today. Fortunately, Mr. Corbin still has a chance to be magnanimous and leave office with honour. As part of the preparatory process for his exit, the party should return to the methodology for “The Successor Leader” and the “Way Forward Document”, both being instruments that emanated from an intense period of meaningful engagement during the 1997-2000 period.
So I close with my favourite quote taken from the dictum of Albert Einstein: “We cannot change today’s problems with the same level of thinking that created them”. There is need for a paradigm shift within the PNCR. Let the ‘Einstein principle’ reign. Supporters of the PNCR cannot afford to embrace the luxury of sentiment by remaining traditional and episodic; we must of necessity become adoptive to change. Change is what we need.
Andrew Hicks
It is disgusting that our teachers have to protest in the streets for a…
May 10, 2024
– President Ali visits Guyana National Stadium By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – Yesterday, the National Assembly successfully passed the ICC Cricket World Cup West Indies Bill, 2024,...Kaieteur News – This column does not respond to criticisms, except where there is misrepresentation of what was said... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]