IN the Kaieteur News editorial of September 24 entitled “PPP Presidential Candidate” it said as follows: “In the run-up to the 1997 elections, with the passing of Dr Jagan, it was reliably reported that there was a deadlock in the Ex-Co between two candidates (Messrs Ramkarran and Nagamootoo). Mrs. Jagan was proposed as a compromise candidate, and the rest, as they say, is history.” This myth has been promoted for years by Mr. Frederick Kissoon in many columns in this newspaper and I have denied it before. It is not true.
At the Executive meeting in August 1997 at which the issue of the candidacy was first discussed, Mr. Moses Nagamootoo indicated early (I cannot actually remember whether it was at or before the meeting) that he was not available as a candidate. This was noted in the opening remarks of one of the first contributors to the debate who said that he/she was ruling out consideration of Moses based on what he had indicated. Moses did not demur. There was therefore no deadlock between myself and Moses and Mrs. Jagan was not proposed as a compromise candidate.
At the meeting there was a broad, wide ranging discussion on the issue and many comrades were proposed and considered for recommendation to the Central Committee including myself and Mrs. Jagan. Several who were named also indicated that they did not wish to be considered. At the end of the discussions, it was agreed that Mrs. Jagan would be the candidate. This decision was based on the fact, among other things, that Mrs. Jagan was the person most likely to ensure victory at the elections. The decision had nothing to do with any compromise.
The theory that those persons in the PPP who have indicated a willingness to offer themselves as nominees for the candidacy are in such a deadly struggle with each other that a compromise candidate will have to be introduced to break some imaginary deadlock is a fanciful contrivance and is not grounded in reality. I, and I believe everyone else in the leadership of the PPP, expect that unless a candidate is unanimously agreed upon and accepted by the Central Committee, at the appropriate time nominations will take place and a secret ballot will be taken. Nominations can potentially include any member of the leadership, whether that person has declared an interest or not. I am talking about special rules but about normal democratic practices in any democratically managed organisation such as the PPP. This, I believe is in accordance with the decision announced by the Party about the method of selection. It is the voting members who will decide by their vote whether to support one of the announced candidates, if nominated, or some other person, also if nominated.
While the PPP has not yet reached the stage of open campaigns for leadership positions and presidential candidates, as advocated by Moses, I am sure it will get there soon. Such a method of choosing will do no harm to the Party and will strengthen its internal democracy. The current method is based on a specific history during which the Party had to prepare itself for the possibility of operating underground if it was made illegal and of securing and maintaining maximum unity. Such methods cannot last in current conditions.
The campaign for the leadership of the British Labour Party which has just ended in a surprising victory for Ed Milliband is not predicted to break up the Labour Party. Such open methods of choice in the PPP in the hopefully near future will similarly not harm its unity.