TWO political parties (PPP and ANUG) and a coalition of parties (APNU+AFC) have announced their presidential candidates for the coming elections. The constitution mandates the naming of presidential candidates, but more importantly the electorate has always been influenced by the top of the ticket. Leadership matters in all countries, especially when parties tend to be of similar strength. It is, therefore, safe to conclude that the party with the most acceptable presidential candidate has an advantage over the others.

In Guyana and the wider Caribbean, the electorate has historically been swayed by the charismatic leader—the leader who inspires an emotional response from his followers. Given the nature of our society, people have tended to look to leaders who show a capacity to deal with the big, overarching challenges of the time. With the coming of independence and the challenges therein, the country turned to Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham. These two giants have since been the standard by which all subsequent aspirants to the highest office have been measured.

Guyana is about to take a big step out of the bottom of the proverbial heap. The coming oil and gas economy demands among other things bold and innovative leadership—the kind of leadership that inspires confidence in the society that it can meet the challenges of the time. At this critical juncture, the country needs a steady hand and level head at the top. But above all, it needs wisdom and experience—that rare combination of qualities that separates the visionary from the ordinary leader. It is our considered opinion, therefore, that the coming election is partly a referendum on leadership.

It is for that reason that this publication gives its initial endorsement to David Granger . With all due respect to the other aspirants to the highest office, Granger offers Guyana its best hope at this time. From his entry into the political arena a decade ago, he has demonstrated a level of integrity and uprightness that has earned him the respect of a broad cross-section of the society, including his political peers.

There can be no doubt that President Granger has restored dignity to the highest office. This observation has been made by more than one political analyst. With the death of Dr Jagan, the presidency had steadily declined to the point where it became one of the major reasons the PPP was ejected from office. Mr. Granger, then, came to office with the expressed task of repairing the damage that was done to the vey soul of the presidency. And in less than five years he has transformed the institution to the point where people have begun to again demonstrate confidence in, and respect for, government.

President Granger has also distinguished himself as an effective manager, which is a critical element of modern governmental leadership. Managing a coalition of six parties of diverse orientations is not an easy task. In the face of some uneasy intra-coalition relations, the President has held the partnership together to the point where all the parties enthusiastically endorsed him as the candidate going forward. This quality cannot be overstated; it is an essential asset in our fragile political culture.

Mr Granger has also shown an ability to balance devolution of authority and maintaining a firm hand on the leadership compass. His presidency has not been marred by resignations and dismissals from cabinet. In fact, there have been minimal reshuffles. This points to a stability of government that is an important reflection of astute leadership.

Above and beyond his innate qualities, President Granger has been a scandal-free leader. He has not been embroiled in personal or political scandals. This is rare for a leader in the contemporary world. It is a testimony to his incorruptibility, which is in direct contrast to other leaders of this time. The PPP’s presidential candidate, for example, has been dogged by questions about the integrity his academic certificates. That he has not been able to put the issue to rest is surely a reason for disqualification from the highest office.

The PPP’s presidential candidate has not been embraced by his potential constituents, largely because he does not meet the basic requirements of leadership. Apart from the scandal, he lacks the necessary experience for the office. While he served as a government minister, his role was more of a follower of the maximum leader. He has not shown an intellectual grasp of the issues that animate the discourses about Guyana’s future development. He allows himself to be overshadowed and dominated by Mr Jagdeo. Should he be elected, his tenure would be at best a puppet-presidency. In the final analysis, Mr Ali is running out of his league and Guyana cannot risk its future in such an unprepared hand.
While Mr Ralph Ramkarran is an experienced politician who has had a distinguished legal career, his readiness for the top office must be called into question. As a part-time politician, he has not been in the rough and tumble of decision-making. Further, one is not sure that he has the appetite for the demands of the job. As a PPP dissident, his legitimacy among that party’s core constituency is severely compromised, thus robbing him of a path to the presidency.

This is where Mr Granger is head and shoulders above his competitors—he has legitimacy. Despite desperate attempts by the PPP to demonise him, a vast majority of Guyanese accept his right to be President. He is greeted with enthusiasm wherever he goes. His appeal cuts across ethnicity and race, because he brings to the office a keen awareness of what it takes to govern a multi-ethnic society. His respect for the cultural worth of all groups is unparalleled.

Our endorsement of Mr Granger does not suggest that he is without flaws. After all, he is human. But given his personal and political qualities, he is the best qualified candidate. Guyana is safer with him at the helm. As a leader, his example can be held up as standard for others to follow. Forward to a second Granger term.