The PNC Congress
Editorial
Stabroek News
August 4, 2002
The PPP Congress last month supplied little evidence that the party, either structurally or ideologically, was capable of adapting to the requirements of our current situation. Attention now turns to the PNC which is the other half of the local political equation, due to hold its Congress this month.
Surprisingly, perhaps, the revised PNC constitution (1994) does not suffer from some of the defects of its PPP counterpart. There is a leader, a chairman and a general secretary of the party (the latter chosen by the leader), and the leader is the presidential candidate in general elections. In addition, too, the members of the Central Executive Committee of the PNC are directly elected by Congress, and not indirectly elected by the General Council - the equivalent of the PPP's Central Committee. In contrast, it is the latter organ which votes in members for the governing party's Executive Committee.
At the lower levels the organization of the two entities is very similar; they were, after all, hatched from the same egg. The real difference, perhaps, lies in the degree of discipline exercised by the upper echelons of the parties over their rank and file. The PPP, despite the fact that it has been in power for ten years, still exerts considerable control over its membership, while the indications are that in the case of the PNC this is no longer true.
The irony is that if the situation were the other way around, the nation might even conceivably benefit. As the PPP's recent Congress demonstrated, the rigid posture adopted at the top prevented any new ideas from being given serious consideration, although some proposed reforms were on the agenda and were in fact discussed - it was just that they were thrown out wholesale. As it is, therefore, the governing party will not be under any pressure from its Group or District bodies to exercise greater flexibility in the context of the political impasse; any change in direction will have to come from above.
The situation with the PNC appears to be quite the reverse. In a letter to this newspaper last month, Mr Wesley Kirton said that the main opposition party had failed to "function as a cohesive, efficient and effective organisation," and he went on to observe that its groups, particularly in the villages, "have become defunct and it has lost touch with its rank and file membership and support base." What is publicly evident is the radicalisation of the party's constituency, so that far from the senior executives of the PNC being in a position to ensure the maintenance of a more rational party line at all levels, they themselves have been adopting the language of the radicals in their rhetoric. In other words, they give the appearance of not being fully in charge of the agenda.
And the PNC's agenda is the critical issue. It is long past time that the party confronted the realities of its situation, and started working out a coherent position within the current democratic framework. A long-term strategy needs to be devised, which envisages over time accession to government through the ballot box, and which in the interim encompasses proposals for giving content to the term 'inclusivity.' Above all, the party has to eschew forever the active or passive condoning of lawlessness exhibited by any segment of its support base, and drive home to its constituents that violence targeting the Indian community simply will not be tolerated. On this issue above all others, there must be a reassertion of party discipline.
Paradoxically none of this is out of consonance with the PNC's own constitution, to the objects of which no one could take exception. For example, the first of these refers to creating "an environment which is favourable to the Party's winning and maintaining governmental office by electoral means," while number 10 states that the aim of the party is: "To contribute to the creation of a climate of peace, stability and social cohesion. The Party recognises that such a climate is the basis for the economic prosperity of the nation." In other words, the PNC has departed from the principles which it officially espouses. Has it not finally reached the point, where, for the sake of its own integrity, it must practise what it preaches?
There is something else too, and that is the belief the party encourages among the its younger constituents that the PPP is the source of their ills, and that if it were not in office all would be well. For all kinds of reasons, it is not healthy propaganda. The administration is indeed inept, but the problems the country faces are not to be laid exclusively at its door; they have their origins in a variety of sources, including, it must be said, the PNC itself.
There comes a point where instead of the repeated cries about marginalisation, the party has to decide to do something on its own about the educational levels of its young supporters, thereby opening avenues for their advancement. With a little imagination, a bit of organization and some funding from the PNC diaspora this is surely not unachievable. As Mr Kirton said: "The party needs leaders who will not just use its youth to engage in protest, but instead organise these youths into groups which they can educate and advise about the political process, offer training in reading, writing, computer and other skills."
There has been much debate in the media about the choice of leader. Given the current situation, if Mr Hoyte agrees to stand as a nominee, he will undoubtedly be re-elected. At this particular juncture there is probably no other candidate with the gravitas to hold the party together, and carry it with him if it is to be set on a new course. Mr Hoyte, should he both stand and be elected, may be an interim leader. What is important, however, is the direction the party chooses to take now, and in due course that may determine who it is that will eventually succeed Mr Hoyte.
Last month, the PPP was at the crossroads and it decided to turn back. It remains to be seen what the PNC will do when their turn comes around.