IT is brash to think that a predominance of poetry recitals of the PNC’s history in office will magnetise and marshal core PPP/C supporters to stay the party line on May 11, 2015. That repugnant history of the PNC must be told. But how it is done is what matters.

It is critical for the PPP/C to use the PNC’s history in office as a framework, as a basis, not as a poetry recital, to enable policy makers to know what the situation was like in Guyana in the PNC’s 28 years in office, in order to know how far Guyana has come, and where Guyana has to go in the future. The PPP/C must apply this PNC’s history as a starting point to show how Guyana has evolved into something better today than what it was during the PNC’s years in office.

To do this requires couching that offensive history within a framework for comparison purposes is necessary, and not do a poetry recital. A poetry recital is too scanty to bring out the true impact of vices in the PNC’s ruling era.

This approach is in no way suggesting that the PNC record should not be exposed, as the evils are manifold and telling in the 28 years of the PNC reign; only that the PNC record should not be presented as a mere poetry recital.

The vices in evidence are well at hand for all to decipher as the ballot box killings, the Walter Rodney assassination, unaudited government accounts, suspension of habeas corpus, detention without trial, a bankrupt economy, limited secondary schooling, limited fundamental freedoms, limited health provisions, among other stunning evils.
In fact, the World Bank Report 1994 (Guyana, Strategies for Reducing Poverty, Report No. 12861-GUA) had this to say about Guyana during the PNC’s record in office: “…characterised by economic and social decline caused by misdirected Government policies and an over-extended role of the state. Real GDP grew at only 0.4 percent per annum on average — less than population growth. Economic performance worsened significantly during the 1980s. Demand management policies were expansionary, the economy lost competitiveness, external balances came under pressure, and the government relied increasingly on price controls and quantitative restrictions on trade. This further reduced overall economic activity, while spawning a parallel market for foreign exchange that fed inflation. The country’s infrastructure became dilapidated, real incomes dropped sharply, poverty increased, and the Government became increasingly unable to provide basic social services.”
Needless to say the World Bank report presented a poor PNC track record in office. Using this PNC’s history of poor outcomes in office as a basis, and not as a poetry recital, the PPP/C could show how it has bettered Guyana on each negative as outlined in this World Bank Report. For this reason, the PPP/C as a whole should not become a prisoner to the poetry recital of the history of its main competitor the new PNC (APNU-AFC).
The PPP/C’s record in office is infinitely better and it should present that record proudly and comprehensively. The PPP/C as the incumbent party cannot afford to overlook its recent record because that approach would give the impression of being unresponsive and unaccountable to voters (Greene, 2015, p.3).

The PPP/C has the evidence to tell the Guyanese people in no uncertain terms that they are better off today than what they were in 1992. But the PPP/C also must not do a poetry recital of its track record; providing a narrative of its track record to compare with the PNC’s history would produce the desired electoral impact.

Indeed, the PPP/C has a damn good track record in office and this is what the people want to hear. The Guyanese people want to hear how their lives have become better, and what the current party platforms (manifesto-beliefs, policy choices, ambitions, and their impact on the nation) are to make their lives even better in the years ahead. Of course, the PPP/C can use the PNC’s history as a basis to show marked differences between the two parties and how the PPP/C’s new covenant with the people has catapulted Guyana to new horizons, well beyond the margins of the PNC’s troubling history in office.
However, any sustained disproportionate poetry recital reveling on the troubling PNC’s record in office would only serve to dwarf the solid PPP/C’s accomplishments. If dwarfing does happen, it would be because the new PNC has full leeway and uses huge opportunities to attack the PPP/C’s record, as there may not be a comparable presentation of that record by the PPP/C, especially if the PPP/C focuses on poetry rather than prose in the election campaign.
With only about a week before elections, the incumbent PPP/C has to say and the people want to hear, in Clinton’s language (2004), that, indeed, there is greater opportunity for all, greater responsibility from all, and a better sense of common purpose, all adding up to a solid record in office.
And overly talking about this record is more than critical for the May 11 elections. The PPP/C goes into the elections with an incumbency advantage, where, generally, voters have a greater interest in the Government’s performance than on a poetry recital of the evils of the PNC ruling era.
In addition, given the fact that Guyana’s electorate has resilient traditional party attachments to the new PNC and the PPP/C, voters with these robust party attachments will be less interested to support a flash party (Converse and Dupeux, 1962); APNU-AFC coalition is the flash party, the new political entity, but APNU and AFC previously have been around as separate parties.

APNU is still the PNC, so it is still wedded to its robust traditional support base. AFC as part of a coalition can only hope that its supporters in the 2011 elections remain committed to the party, but there may be some who see the coalition as a flash party and so may not support AFC, or they may become undecided voters, and, perhaps, not vote. Should this occur, then the PPP/C may do better in the upcoming elections than APNU-AFC coalition.

Anyways, with such vast demographic changes in gender and age among voters for the first time in Guyana’s elections, it is possible that parties should brace themselves for a possible build-up of undecided voters. Under such circumstances, the PPP/C may want to have a conversation with undecided voters.

(Dr. Misir’s new blogsite is: liberalmusingspost.wordpress.com and email address:musingsgy@yahoo.com)

APNU is still the PNC, so it is still wedded to its robust traditional support base. AFC as part of a coalition can only hope that its supporters in the 2011 elections remain committed to the party, but there may be some who see the coalition as a flash party and so may not support AFC, or they may become undecided voters, and, perhaps, not vote. Should this occur, then the PPP/C may do better in the upcoming elections than APNU-AFC coalition.

By Dr. Prem Misir