IN THE run-up to the current PNC congress, that party’s chairman, Basil Williams, when asked about the vitality of the party, made a very revealing statement: He suggested that when Government ministers who are PNC members go out on Government duty, they are also representing the party.The statement caught my eye because it raises anew an old question: Should there be a clear line of separation between party and State? For a party that has had to endure the charge that its declared doctrine of paramountcy of the party over the State in 1974 was the root cause of Government descent into rampant authoritarianism, I find Williams’s statement quite interesting.

Here is the quote from the August 19 edition of the Guyana Chronicle, and it is noteworthy: “Additionally, the PNC chairman said President David Granger, who is also Leader of the party, travels the country and speaks with citizens. That, he said, is also a representation of the PNC.
‘When we go out, we sometimes go out in both capacities -– as Government officials and Members of Parliament (MPs), [to] do party work,’ noted Williams. He said there is a thin line between being a Minister of the Government and a Member of Parliament or party representative. The chairman explained that MPs are expected to act in the interest of the party which they represent. Speaking on the issue, General Secretary of the PNC, Oscar Clarke, said oftentimes President Granger is interpreted to be speaking as President only, but he is in fact speaking on behalf of the party.”

The statements attributed to Chairman Williams and General Secretary Clarke point to a problem that could have some serious consequences for relations within the APNU+AFC coalition. Williams says there is a thin line between the roles of MP, minister and party representative. I disagree with him. There are very clear distinctions among those offices.
The minister is an officer of the State. He or she represents all of the people of the country, regardless of party affiliation. The minister is not appointed by the party; he or she is appointed by the Head of Government in his or her capacity as the Chief Officer of the Government. Mr. Granger does not appoint ministers in his capacity as leader of the PNC or APNU; he does so as President. Further, once Mr. Granger had taken the oath as President, he became President of all of Guyana. His role as a partisan is immediately greatly diminished, and so do the roles of the ministers he appoints.

The role of the MP is much more complex; but, in the end, it’s similar to those of the President and the ministers. The MP is also an officer of the State, representing both the country as a whole and the geographical area he or she directly represents or is assigned to by the parliamentary leader. Although in our system the party determines who sits in Parliament, once an MP is deemed to be elected, in a real sense, he or she no longer represents the party. So while the MP is expected to also represent the interests of the party in the National Assembly, he or she is not bound to vote along party lines. The MP is ultimately answerable to those who elected him or her.

The role of party representative is straightforward. Often, the leading officers of the party speak on its behalf, and represent it at various fora, such as press conferences and party congresses. The problem is when, as often is the case in Guyana, the three roles are fused into one person — for example, Mr. Granger is President, Leader of APNU, leader of the PNC; Mr. Harmon is Minister of Government, General Secretary of APNU, MP, and member of the PNC — when that person speaks, in what capacity is he or she speaking? That person cannot be speaking or acting in more than one capacity at a time. In this regard, it is a good sign that some ministers have declined to run for top posts in the PNC.

I am acutely aware that parties have interests and agendas, and they expect their members to advocate for those in the Legislature and the Executive branches. I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I think that is necessary; but I do have a problem with the deliberate blurring of the lines between party and State, as Williams and Clarke seem to be suggesting.

When a minister goes into a community, he or she must state very clearly in what capacity he or she is so doing. This is especially important since we have a partnership Government comprising several parties, and because our political environment is so sensitive. The PNC blurred those lines to its peril, and the PPP took it to scandalous levels. This Government needs to steer clear of that temptation. Mr. Granger and the ministers must resist going down the road suggested by the PNC Chairman and General Secretary. As difficult as it is in the circumstances, there must be clear lines of separation between party and State. We cannot afford to even flirt with the notion of paramountcy of the party again.

But having said the above, I am quite aware that Williams and Clarke are grappling with a real issue that the PNC, AFC and WPA have to confront sooner rather than later: The role of the party when it is part of a larger entity than itself. I make bold to say that the formation and successes of the APNU and the APNU+AFC Coalition have diminished the identities and appeal of their constituent members. As an electoral brand, the PNC is no longer as potent as it used to be; an entire generation of its constituency is being socialized as APNU, and not PNC. The party, to my mind, is slow to grasp this reality.

As an aside, when I am invited to speak in some so-called PNC strongholds — as I often am — some PNC members usually whisper in the communities that I have a partisan agenda that is aimed at building the WPA at the expense of the PNC. I find that very amusing, largely because it exposes a lack of understanding of the changing dynamics of Guyanese politics. I do not ever speak anywhere as WPA if it is not a WPA event. I am aware that when I am invited to speak, it is either in my individual capacity or as APNU. To go to an event and speak as WPA is to insult my hosts and narrow my message. I have found that narrow, partisan messages are increasingly unwanted among the masses; they know you belong to a party, but they tend to be less interested in your partisan message.

My prediction is that partnership politics will overtake party politics sooner rather than later. This does not mean that parties would become irrelevant; it simply means that they would have to adapt to this reality. Understandably, the PNC is having a hard time coming to grips with that reality, given its sense of bigness. Once you go down the road of partnership, it becomes difficult to calculate which party brings in more votes. Voters respond to the totality of the parties and what that represents. When the masses respond to Mr. Granger with much love, they are not responding to the PNC leader, but to the APNU leader and President Granger. So, too, are the response to Nagamootoo and Roopnaraine. Political time has moved on, and so must the PNC and the other constituent parties of the Coalition. The parties are now challenged to become sources of ideas to drive Government policies and serve as bridges between the Government and the communities.

(Dr. David Hinds, a political activist and commentator, is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Caribbean and African Diaspora Studies at Arizona State University. More of his writings and commentaries can be found on his YouTube Channel Hinds’ Sight: Dr. David Hinds’ Guyana-Caribbean Politics and on his website www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com. Send comments to dhinds6106@aol.com)