IT WOULD seem that as this nation moves closer to the November 28 presidential, parliamentary and regional elections, political desperation is driving leading personalities of the PNCR-dominated APNU to reveal stranger tendencies which are quite inimical to established democratic norms. Such norms were grossly violated under the PNC’s ‘party paramountcy’ doctrine over all national institutions, including the judiciary and the army and police.
Take, for example, the weird rationalisation of the APNU’s presidential candidate, former GDF Brigadier David Granger, of the PNC’s introduction and sustainability of the anti-democratic political doctrine of ‘paramountcy’ of the then ruling party when he participated in last Thursday’s debate of presidential candidates at the University of Guyana.
Perhaps misreading the general mood of the audience, and influenced more by the emotional behaviour of some disruptive elements, Granger trapped himself at questioning time into failing to denounce the PNC’s ‘Palm Tree’ flag that used to be flown alongside the national ‘Golden Arrowhead’ at the then Court of Appeal building in Kingston.
He came forward with an even more significant surprise by daring to rationalise enforcement of the PNC’s ‘paramountcy’ doctrine that had made such a farce of democratic governance and the rule of law. He said, as reported by the media, that party paramountcy was “one of the reasons that there was never a military coup in Guyana…”
Really, Mr. Ganger? By having members of the GDF and Police Force swearing ‘loyalty’ to the then ruling PNC prevented ‘a coup’ from occurring under the dictatorial rule of President Forbes Burnham?
Was that also the reason to justify the GDF then playing a key role in the ‘conduct’ of national elections, with force and fraud as very disturbing features? Thank goodness Guyana has long parted company with such a dangerous doctrine and practice.
And what was the ‘message’ then being telegraphed to the judiciary in having the PNC’s flag so arrogantly flying atop the Court of Appeal building?
Was that rationalisation by him of the disgusting doctrine of ‘party paramountcy’ one of Granger’s sad moments of political weakness; or a hilarious example of ‘mouth open, story jump out’?
There were more political surprises to come from APNU by Friday evening, when one of its better known vociferous executive members, Dr. George Norton, addressed an election campaign meeting at Stabroek Market Square.
Whatever may have been the reason, Norton chose to ridicule the idea of having Guyana’s coming elections being independently observed.
According to Demerarawaves’ Online news service yesterday, Norton told the meeting that “these observer missions are a farce… Don’t let us take them seriously…”
Incidentally, for the benefit of readers, among overseas observer missions would be the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the Commonwealth Secretariat. Guyana is a member state of both.
Further, local observer groups would include the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) and the experienced Electoral Assistance Bureau (EAB). The resident diplomatic missions will also be engaged in this exercise.
Question of relevance, therefore, is: Why should the APNU’s Norton suddenly become so unnecessarily objectionable against reputable international, regional and national observer missions for the coming poll?
Guyanese across political boundaries and committed to what’s best for this nation should consider the implications of both the rationalisation of the PNC’s doctrine of ‘party paramountcy’ by APNU’s Presidential candidate Granger, as well as the objection of the PNC’s Norton, now an executive of APNU, to the independent monitoring of the November 28 poll by international and local missions. Stay tuned.