SEVERAL comments have been made about the PPP leadership for the next elections. Several AFC supporters and other opposition elements have been giving advice in the press regarding what the party should do, and who are the prospective candidates. These folks need to stand back take note of the following.
The first thing to recognise is that the PPP is a disciplined political party. It has managed to avoid a leadership crisis after all these years in the political arena. When you compare the PPP to the others, the picture is clear. Let’s take a look. We can start with the WPA. After three decades no one knows who is the real leader of the WPA. The party was ably led by Rodney but since his death, no single person has emerged as the uncontested leader. Is it Professor Clive Thomas? Is it Dr. Roopnarine? The rotation principle has caused more problems than it was intended to solve.
The AFC adopted the rotation principle and has also been catapulted into a crisis, a state of affairs that continues to this day. The problem now is that no one knows who speaks for the party, a situation that may be symptomatic of the uncertainty that exists deep within the leadership structure. The AFC should be careful not to take advice from the WPA because the latter is not very good in electoral politics.
Incidentally, no less a person than the former CEO (Peter Ramsaroop) of the AFC has accused the party of being undemocratic.
The PNCR is no different. We all know what happened last year when some candidates for the party’s leadership openly vented frustrations about voting irregularities and other issues that have long characterised the image of PNCR.
The Justice for All party is a one man show and so nothing more needs to be said. GAP is itself a gap.
By comparison, the PPP has always managed to change its leadership with relative ease. The critics say that the process is not transparent, but who are they to comment given what has happened to the WPA, AFC, and PNCR.
I would also like to make a few comments about the organisational ability of the parties. The PPP is a mighty, political machinery when it comes to winning elections. It has representatives all across the country, and can organise large events with very little notice. The party offices are always active.
You cannot say the same for the PNCR, which only has notable strength in region four. Its field offices elsewhere are almost abandoned. For confirmation of this you may want to visit the PNCR’s Vreed-en-Hoop office. The last time I went in it was occupied by a few lay hairdressers. Grass and other wild vegetation have taken over the yard. The place looks abandoned.
For its part, the AFC is better able to organise meetings in New York and Toronto than in Guyana. The main reason for this is that the AFC is really a Georgetown outfit. Further, the second level leadership of the AFC is not deep. You do hear something once in a while from Gerhard Ramsaroop, but he is more of a GNI guy. He has practically no connections to the ground politics in Guyana.
The biggest problem for the AFC is that it has never to date issued a statement without mentioning race. It is shallow on policy, weak on the ground, and must therefore rely on that which it apparently rejects. The AFC should ask those extremists who are speaking on its behalf to ‘stick a pin’. This is free advice; take it or leave it.
The WPA’s only show of strength recently was at the National Library two weeks ago when some senior WPA folks joined Mark Benschop in applauding Frederick Kissoon’s appalling presentation.
Finally, I am still awaiting an apology from Sheila Holder.
