IN their 2004 book The Democratic Century, Seymour Martin Lipset and Jason M. Lankin wrote that “[i]t is legitimacy that allows political parties in a democracy – whether a private organisation or a polity – to form an enduring organised opposition” (Lipset and Lankin, 54).

I urge the PNCR, which will soon hold its Biennial Congress, to take this point seriously. The theme of the Congress is “People’s Victory Through Local Democracy”.

That is a great theme but many fear it might be the only non-controversial aspect of the Congress. The question of legitimacy which has so long dogged the PNCR has surfaced once again.

There is now the proverbial ‘washing of the laundry’ in the public by senior members of the PNCR, and especially among the leadership contestants. Politicking in the public sphere is not unusual during a leadership contest, and so no one should ‘judge’ the PNCR for the little skirmishes that are taking place. The astounding thing is that the main issues provoking the internal squabble include the all too predictable specter of rigged elections.

Specifically, a lack of confidence has been expressed regarding the upcoming election for the party’s leadership.

One would think that given the well-known history of the PNC as the party that specialises in rigging elections, it would try to stay away from that stigma as much as possible. No luck there. The matter has become grave because Richard Van-West Charles, who is one of the leadership contestants, has publicly said that there in no transparency in the elections process.

Dr. Van-West Charles tabled a 15 points plan to improve the electoral process but the plan has apparently been snubbed by the PNCR’s Central Executive.

One source of discontent is the party membership list. According to press reports, attempts by Van-West Charles to verify the membership list has met with resistance. This sounds quite familiar.

The PNCR’s handling of its own membership list is akin to the way in which the party ‘managed’ the voters’ list during national elections. We know for sure that during those sordid years even the dead voted, and, of course, many comrades voted repeatedly. Will the same trick be used against Dr. Charles and other contestants? The PNCR Executive should bear in mind that “…organised political parties, by their behavior and success, also help to maintain … legitimacy and effectiveness” in a democracy (Lipset and Lankin, 54).

I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage Mr. Lincoln Lewis who penned a piece called “All Guyanese should support justice” in yesterday’s SN to do the right thing. Mr. Lewis should call on the long list of well wishers and supporters to phone the PNCR and request that they hold a transparent election – in their own house! Justice begins at home.

Do not forget to also write to Sir Trotman and report the issues that have been raised by Dr. Charles, and just recently, by Mr. Aubrey Norton.

If Lewis and the list of people and organisations he named as supporters are seriously interested in democracy, they should all be at the forefront demanding free and fair elections within the PNCR.

By so doing, they would provide a great service to themselves and their institutions because, as Lipset, Trow, and Coleman noted, legitimacy can help the opposition recruit members (Lipset and Lankin, 55).

This is free advice, and one would hope that the PNCR would choose the path of legitimacy, rather than the comfortable alternatives it has already perfected through years of practice.