SN: Why did you accept the nomination for party leader and could you tell us how the number of nominations you received compared to those for other candidates?

VA: I accepted the nomination because I had been approached over the years by a number of persons in and outside the party who feel I have what it takes to lead the party and the nation. So my acceptance was partly a response to that call. It's also because I have confidence that the PNC over the years has invested a lot in me and has given me the opportunity to develop into a person who could lead the party. So in that sense it is an opportunity to give back to both the party and the country where it is widely felt I have what it takes to be the leader. In terms of the pecking order the only person who received more nominations than I did was Mr Hoyte.

SN: Substantially more ?

VA: Significantly more. But no matter what comes out of this Congress my motivation will not come to an end. You could see a possibility in the very short term of myself becoming the leader of the PNC and the President of the country. I think my ideas, my experience my support of the party all lead to a bright future for myself and the party. Faith has been shown in me by my appointment to a number of committees including the Oversight Committee and the Constitutional Reform Committee.

SN: But you might be what they call in America "a policy wonk" slightly dull with little flair or charisma. Is there a place for charisma in politics?

VA: I don't think the issue with me is charisma. I think I have a fair amount. I think the further you go up the ladder the less you rely on charm .As you mature you are judged more by experience, policy positions. But from a young man I have been involved in leadership roles. Obviously there must have been some charisma to influence my selection. One may argue I have not occupied a lot of space in terms of media exposure. But since 1994 I have been Vice Chair of the party and have held other senior positions. I would shudder to think it was without the help of at least some charisma.

SN: With Mr Hoyte running, the result appears to be a foregone conclusion. Why then run and why do you think Mr Hoyte is running given that he intends to retire soon?

VA: I have accepted the nomination. What I will do will depend on what other candidates do. It has never been my inclination to contest against Mr Hoyte and with the number of nominations he has it is still not my inclination. But in politics one has to keep one's options open. I think there are two factors why Mr Hoyte is running. One is that in the country over the last few months the situation has deteriorated significantly and he may feel that there is unfinished work.

SN What might that be, dialogue or more protests?

VA: I would say in general terms to see the party through a significant period and to see the country through as far as the party can.

SN: Some would say it is a crisis of the PNC's making.

VA: When one looks at the joblessness, the corruption, the extra judicial killings all these have compounded on creating the current crisis and rather than being laid at the door of the PNC are the responsibility of the present government.

SN: What are your strengths as a leader?

VA: I think my strengths are firstly my experience as I have been in politics for over thirty years and I have been able to grow as a politician. Over those thirty years I have been exposed to competitive politics and have been elected to various offices. This is certainly a demonstration that people have had faith in me as a leader.

I think I have ideas both in terms of the party and the national scenario and I am quite sure people who have heard me on various programmes are aware of this. But not only do I have ideas, I am prepared to execute and implement my ideas. I think that I have acquired a fair amount of knowledge both formally and informally as well as gained exposure nationally and overseas. I have interacted at various forums and have presented a number of papers and this exposure will allow me to operate both nationally and internationally. At the same time I have not lost the common touch. Perhaps some people may think I have a little too much of a common touch. All of this adds up to a great deal of exposure so when people come to me they come not on a hope or notion but on active experience of my capabilities.

SN: Do you think that PNC protests some of which have resulted in violence have substantially changed government policy?

VA: Well I do not think they have substantially changed government policy but I would certainly say that a whole group of activities which is not necessarily just street protests but also protests in the media have resulted in the government being more cautious.

SN: So you are satisfied you chose the right course of action even though people have been hurt?

VA: We have had some unfortunate incidents but I don't know that social development is ever without price. Whilst I do not look forward to paying a high price the fact is in the long term these things add up to the general good of the society.

SN But terrible things have reportedly been done to Indo-Guyanese. It's hard to say that to somebody who's been mugged or beaten.

VA: I'd like to say two things. Lots of the terrible things that have been done have not been directly as part of protests. There may be instances where a protest is happening at Lamaha St and people are mugged at Stabroek Market. I want it to be clear that people who were not related to our mobilisation are involved in these activities and secondly for propaganda reasons many of these instances are exaggerated. So you have to view it in that context as well. You must also bear in mind that you might go to the doctor and you might not want to take an injection because it is painful. Certainly when it is taken there is that moment of pain but then there is that period of happiness thereafter. What I find is that even though these instances may be painful and costly, the accumulation of all these interactions and conflicts may result in a state of affairs which is far better than that which existed before.

SN But it is not is it ?There is political stalemate at the moment.

VA: Well I don't think we have met that culmination and as a leader one cannot be unaware of the social dynamics. I am not saying that these acts were intentional or planned but I do recognise that while I am pained from what has happened, in the long term they could be the catalysts which lead to the resolution of the country's problems. So there may be in retrospect an upside to all of this. There is of course right now a huge downside but it may be these events motivate people to get involved who may have stood on the sidelines previously .

SN: But the violence and in particular the July 3rd incident have to some extent tarnished the PNC's reputation have they not? Some would say the PNC wants power at any cost even if that means the disintegration of the country.

VA: Well I think that the issue of the PNC wanting power at any cost and the July 3rd incident are not related because certainly the PNC did not orchestrate the events of July 3rd. The question of their reputation being tarnished I don't think you can make such a broad remark. I certainly think there are some people who have distanced themselves from the PNC because of the perception of things and there are people who have been affected by the propaganda of the PPP. One must always be reminded that this is very subjective. It is a question of people's perceptions and while perception is reality it is not always the truth.

SN: Do you feel any responsibility for the events of July 3rd given that you helped to organise the march?

VA: I think one has to be cautious how that responsibility is interpreted. I know for a fact the PNC did not organise the activities which happened at the Office of the President .

So we are not responsible directly for what happened. But to the extent that we mobilised people for that day we have to take some responsibility. We cannot divorce ourselves from the incident . They were our supporters. But I need to put in the caveat . I don't think this nation properly understands what happened that day . There were a number of unknown factors that were at play. Take for example the two persons who were shot . Was there a real threat to the security of the Office of the President? Had those people started to withdraw? Were they in fact locked in and taking refuge from guns?

SN: So is the PNC now reviewing the whole idea of having marches or can we see more in the future?

VA: There has been a press release on the issue .We did say that protests are a legitimate form of political activity but we have to be extremely careful hereafter to have total control of any marches organised so we do not have a degeneration like what occurred on July 3rd. We have to ensure that we are in fact in charge. We have had many marches which are very peaceful and were demonstrative of how we think .

SN: But are those peaceful marches as effective? It seems the only time the government or civil society is prodded in to action is when stores are set alight or there is violence.

VA: We are not at this time advocates of violence...

SN: At this time ?

VA: We certainly will not advocate aggressive violence as a strategy. But certainly as a defensive strategy in the event of a total break down of law and order . We will not sit idly by and be attacked. So we are not at this time advocates of violence. We have therefore to operate in a context of peaceful protest. We do though intellectually recognise that incidents of violence ,not orchestrated nor intended could give impetus to a process. History has shown us that. But that does not mean we will go out there and orchestrate such actions.

SN: But is there then not a temptation to set up the atmosphere for violence and then pull away. You say you don't propose it but you see that violence can be effective..

VA: We are certainly not prepared to create or advocate a violent situation . Who died on that day? Are we going to set up a situation where those who are our comrades are killed ? It is really contradictory for us to be seen sending our comrades out to be killed . But that does not take away from the intellectual exercise one can go through where in retrospect one can say " You know we did not want that to happen. It happened and having happened there was an impetus thereafter." So sometimes some of these persons involved in violence may turn out to be martyrs.

SN: Can you say where the anger, the lawlessness in Buxton might be coming from?

VA: The situation in Buxton has not suddenly dropped from the heaven .There have to be social and economic conditions for this. We have to look at the real causes rather than trying to plaster over symptoms.

SN: There are social problems all over the country. It does not mean everyone is digging up the road. Amerindians have been historically marginalized but they are not rising up in the Rupununi.

VA: Let's put it this way . The entire country has problems. But the entire country has not witnessed Black Clothes police coming in the middle of the night and shooting people. The entire country has not witnessed what happened in Berbice when BASS killed people. In both places you have had eruptions. These are catalysts which lead to social unrest and you have to take this into account.

SN: Surely dialogue is the only solution. Why not start talking today ?

VA: It is inevitable that people have to talk. We can't run away from that. But I think we are at the junction where we have to create the understanding of what should come out of dialogue . The PPP has used the dialogue process to do their own thing and not to move the nation forward . Dialogue will not work if we don't have favourable conditions.

SN Isn't that why you need the dialogue because you don't have favourable conditions ? VA: Well the dialogue in itself requires favourable conditions . You can't come to the table with different intentions and call it meaningful . We have to have dialogue about intent before any discussion of substance .

SN: What do you want before you can go back ?

VA First of all the government must be committed to implementation. While the dialogue has been on pause the government has had quite some time to show good faith. Rather than implement they spend their time talking about what they have supposed to have implemented. Instead they could have taken the opportunity to show these guys (the PNC) up as wasting time while "here we are blazing the trail of implementation." But they have not done that . Implementation is also on pause .

SN: Is the PNC doomed to be a party in opposition and how will you attract Indo Guyanese voters given the perception your party bears responsibility for protests where Indo Guyanese have been attacked .

VA: No I don't think we are doomed to be in opposition .The evidence is there that the party has always gotten over and above what would be its demographic base. This shows we have been able to attract across the divide and will continue to do so. I think the PNC stands a better chance if people were to view things from a standpoint of issues and I think in our own strategy we should emphasise issues. We have no benefits from emphasising race because if we were to do that we would be appealing to a minority ethnic group. I think given our own track record of economic activities and the poor track record of the PPP we are at a stage where people are coming to realize that they can all suffer even though a party that they voted for is in government and this will give us an opportunity to get more votes across the board. But I wish to say however that one of the reasons why the PPP has gotten as many votes is due to the situation where Indo Guyanese feel intimidated if they don't vote for the PPP .And the way in which our votes are counted and the fact that one could identify how someone has voted makes it difficult for Indo Guyanese to make that bold step.

SN: Isn't it the memory of the PNC's time in government why they don't vote for you?

VA: There may be an element of that but there are a lot of Indo Guyanese who would say that a lot of what is happening today would not have happened under the PNC. There are a lot of Indo Guyanese who sought prosperity and had greater job security under the PNC. There are good memories and the more and more the country deteriorates more and more Guyanese are beginning to see that this government cannot be compared to the PNC. This government makes the PNC look good on the question of corruption. So there are good memories and they are creating an environment for even better memories. However the issue is not one of the PNC winning. It's more an issue of the political culture in the country and we need one where people of all races would feel comfortable and still feel they belong here and have a chance to develop themselves. So for me the more critical question is one of the manner in which we administer public affairs rather than who wins the election. It is more about how one ethnic group responds when one party wins. If one were to check my writings as far back as 1991 one would see that the overriding issue is one of political culture. Our greater problem is one of governance and not the issue of who won and lost.

SN: How important is the development of local government to Guyana's future?

VA: It is very critical as a path forward, because a lot of our problems ethnic or otherwise have to do with this high centralisation of power. I think we have a good local government system but I think we need to be very clear about the administration of power through the various levels from the central down to the village. We may be able to create a situation where we find what regions and villages can do and we don't have this interference; that people can feel comfortable in their villages determining their development. Of course we need to define who should do what but not on the basis of power but more efficiency. We also have to make sure the resources are available and that they are not distributed on the whim of the central government but rather on the needs of the various bodies. Also what is the capacity to do certain work? What is the level of poverty? These are factors in determining how much is allocated very objectively to those local areas. If this is done it will help to reduce tensions and people in their little enclaves will feel more comfortable and they can focus on their own development rather than chafing under a system of political patronage. This can only come about when local government bodies are more autonomous, and even when the central government is involved in certain areas there should be an atmosphere of participation.

SN: What is your view on the issue of shared governance?

VA: First of all I see the devolution of power as a form of shared governance in the sense that you have a large number of diverse groups involved in governance from executive down to the village council.

Having said that, in the context of the crisis our country faces I can also see shared governance at the central level playing a role if only as an interim arrangement for five to ten years. We can then get away from the adversarial politics where we can sit collectively and work out a shared vision for the country; to bring order to the manner in which we administer the affairs of the country; a period to implement the basics. We need a period of stability which can lay the foundation on which we can go forward.

Though it may not be a permanent solution to our problems it could be a period of transition from the crisis we are presently in to a more stable platform. So I do advocate at this time such a view.

SN: Wishful thinking ? Considering the PPP is not exactly warm to such an idea?

VA: Not necessarily . What has been absent in the past is the involvement of civil society and in the final analysis their presence should impact significantly on how the parties behave . Ultimately it is to the civil society parties have to turn for their votes .So there is some evidence that civil society is becoming more and more active in creating an environment which would see political parties shifting their position .

SN: What are the long term concerns for Guyana and how as a leader would you address these?

VA: I think there are a few things: ethnic insecurity, economic development, good governance and forming a vision for Guyana.

The nation has to put the ethnic question squarely on the agenda. For a very long time we have denied ourselves that . We have a real ethnic problem and many pretend it does not exist. We have to address its origins and resolve it once and for all. The school system plays a critical role. Two years ago I wrote two articles for the Stabroek News on the pedagogy of mutual respect advocating that young people be exposed to the customs and beliefs of each other. There is too much demonising of culture and religions. We have to use the various government policies. For example housing: the ethnic problem could be addressed by creating communities where diverse groups live together . You can learn to understand the guy living across the fence and then you relate to other races according to experience rather than the stereotypes you are given .