WHAT a harsh critique and analysis of the leadership of the A Partnership For National Unity and its tactics since becoming the official political Opposition party as a result of the 2011 national elections! This has to be a watershed in the history of the PNC, as to how it has been viewed at any particular time. In fact, Ram has disclosed what was immediately apparent when the latter grouping was announced as contesting the last general elections – that with the exceptions of the Justice For All Party (JFAP) and the Working Peoples’ Alliance (WPA), the other components were paper parties!
But the social commentator has only made public what even many in the PNC Party had slowly begun to realise: That Granger has been the wrong choice of person to lead this Party.
It is also instructive that such a detailed criticism of the retired army Brigadier has been made at a time when he has taken on the appearance of a leader under siege, with so many issues that continue to weaken his seemingly unsteady hold on the leadership of his Party.
A case in point is the raging internal dissent that has been further fuelled by the suspension of the popular Region 10 Member of Parliament, Vanessa Kissoon, and announced challenges to his leadership of the Party.
This particular incident has raised the question as to Granger’s ability to understand dissent within a political organisation, for surely, this current issue surrounding Kissoon would have had its genesis in prior disagreements she would have had with Party leaders with regards the Party’s political administrative affairs at Linden.
If anything, Granger should have been guided by the Bauxite strike in the 1970s, when Linden workers confronted Burnham. For a high-profiled Party member as Kissoon definitely is, as demonstrated by the groundswell of support from her Region’s constituents, wisdom dictates that her concerns should have already been given a hearing by Granger, with a view to resolving whatever differences there are. But now there is a full-scale revolt underway that seems likely to invade the imminent biennial Congress.
Surely, the leader of any political Party is expected to bring his authority to bear on especially issues that have the potential to threaten Party unity. Instead, this perceived lack of leadership and weakness may have very well emboldened the recently announced challenges to Granger’s leadership by longstanding member, Aubrey Norton, and the very popular Region 10 Chairman and Party representative, Sharma Solomon.
This failure of leadership has been reflective in Granger’s lack of concept in terms of a programme as to what he perceives as necessary for the socio-economic growth and development of Guyana. OBSERVER, in a number of past columns, would have pointed out his many inconsistencies and contradictions with regards to what he and his coalition had promised for Guyana, especially given the new parliamentary realities. Instead, where there should have been a closer cooperation with the Government in arriving at consensual solutions, there have been Motions that have been a threat to the advancement of the nation and its citizens. For, which Opposition leader worth his salt will support budgetary cuts that threaten directly the daily livelihood of citizens.
Given the contentious leadership contest which the PNC Party had experienced during the Corbin tenure, and the fallout from those two instances that resulted in the exodus of many of the Party’s heavyweights, one would have thought that on ascending to the leadership, Granger would have sought to have those members returned to the fold.
OBSERVER stands to be corrected when he says that this was an initiative he had said would be examined. Of course, padding of the voting members lists and rigging of those contests were the main issues that had prompted the exodus of those members. Ironically, these very concerns have once again been highlighted, with another contest just days away.
OBSERVER can only conclude that no action had been taken to make the Party’s membership list transparent, and its balloting process above board.
Another failure of the PNC’s, for which Granger must bear responsibility, is still its failure to make the Party inclusive, a necessity that has been pointed out by Vincent Alexander during his challenge to Corbin. The former at that time gave a very frank assessment of the need for the Party to change the way that it functions.
If Granger is capable of a better quality of leadership, then perhaps he is overruled by the extremists that are known to exist within the PNC Party. Be that as it may, leadership is about leading in the face of such challenges, particularly when it comes to political leadership. Thus, if he cannot lead his Party, how can he lead this nation?
Granger’s leadership scorecard now stares him in face; and the fact that all sections of the Party seem to be in revolt mode means that members are dissatisfied. The nation will soon be given its total when his Party’s Congress convenes.