LAST weekend, there was quite a significant political statement by leader of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), Robert Corbin, about the party’s future and identity while participating in a General Council meeting of the party.The former parliamentary Opposition Leader had twice unsuccessfully led the party into national elections and last year opted to take a back seat in favour of the outcome of a presidential primary he had initiated and which resulted in a narrow win for the candidature of David Granger to head the PNCR’s list of candidates. The retired GDF Brigadier defeated former Finance Minister Carl Greenidge by 15 votes for the presidential candidate prize.
As earlier reported in sections of the media, Corbin had joined with others at that meeting of the General Council, first since the general election, to warn against internal “factionalism”.
What was most significant was his warning that the Granger-initiated APNU (A Partnership for National Unity) “is not an alternative for the PNCR”, and urged those participating in the meeting to bear in mind that “without the PNCR there could have been no ANPU….The mission of the PNCR,” he stressed, “is to continue to rejuvenate and reposition the party as we collaborate in a wider partnership…”
There are varied speculations about the circumstances, personalities and timing of this perplexing position, legitimate as it may be, as adopted by Corbin, and there could be more in the political mortar than the proverbial ‘pestle’.
For now, a pertinent question, and not only for Corbin, but all who were involved in making the historic decision, is: Why did the party, founded by Forbes Burnham, the former long-serving Head of Government of this nation (albeit based on crooked elections) thought it necessary to AVOID contesting last November 28 national elections as an established political entity and subsumbed its identity to a hitherto unknown, untried party of convenience, namely APNU?
Is it that the inheritors of the party figured that a political marriage of convenience was preferable to sinking the identity of the PNCR? Was it an acceptance that the PNCR was not a fit and proper entity, lacking in political integrity and competence to contest the November 201l poll on its own foundation?
As far as is known, handing over of the “front leadership” position to APNU by sacrificing its own identity for the November 28 poll, must have been a very agonizing factor for faithful, loyal members and supporters of the PNCR.
Question, therefore, is: Why, at last weekend’s General Council ‘post mortem’ at Congress Place, Robert Corbin, the defacto and dejure leader of the party thought it necessary to stress the obvious—that “APNU is not an alternative for the PNCR”?
APNU is supposed to be a ten-member coalition. But the reality is that apart from a generosity of spirit to recognise the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), that once inspired the imagination as a promising player in the body politic, what is there about APNU to have placed the decision-makers of the PNCR in a position to forsake the identity of the party of Forbes Burnham to the extent that legally, it was NOT an identified contestant at the November 28, 2011 poll?
It cannot be a decision influenced by funders, either at home or within the North American Diaspora? And if those opposed to Corbin did not wish him to be the presidential candidate for a third consecutive national poll, he could still have given way to a favoured candidate WITHOUT concurring to bury the identity of the PNCR and gave ‘leadership clearance’ for APNU’s registration to contest the election. Consequently, there was no ‘Palm Tree’ symbol but that of an “open hand”.
Those monitoring the developments would also be paying some attention to what has come to be known as the “Youth Coalition for Transformation” (YCT). Originally identified as the youth arm of APNU it now appears more comfortable to be viewed as an NGO (non-government, non-political outfit), rather than bearing the burden/responsibility as that party’s previously announced “youth arm”.