DR. FAITH Harding’s resignation from the Executive of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), first announced in the Guyana Chronicle, must have come as a surprise to many Guyanese, particularly party constituents, who would recall her being a contestant for the PNCR presidential nomination for the last electoral poll.
But, such action on her part ought not to be any surprise, as it joins similar action taken by party stalwarts over the past five years.
This well known party member, former cabinet minister in the Hoyte administration, senior consultant to both the World Bank and United Nations, with several high profile international assignments to her credit, outlined several reasons, ranging from being sidelined, to seeing no role for women within the movement.
But there was a common denominator that resonated with the other disenchanted members, who walked out earlier on still party leader, Robert Corbin: A party that did not intend to change its culture and practice.
It boggles the mind, that Corbin, experienced politician that he ought to be, did not comprehend the meaning from the first challenge to his leadership, led by Vincent Alexander, and the resultant rebellion that followed in the wake of the latter’s withdrawal from the leadership contest, citing serious irregularities with the party’s membership list.
Again, another challenge mounted by the late, indomitable Winston Murray, supported by senior party members, confirmed the growing call for change within this major opposition.
But Corbin continued, seemingly oblivious to the realities that his prolonged tenure as party leader, supported by a handful of similarly–minded executives, was more harmful than good and a hindrance to the party’s image and electoral chances, a fact supported by the PNCR’ poor campaigning at the 2006 elections, and its consequent loss of seats.
It must have been a contradiction of the greatest sort, when Corbin, who has consistently levelled charges of undemocratic practices against the PPP/C government, was in turn accused of the very deeds by Alexander and his team.
It was revealing, too, that no other a person than Dr. Richard Van West Charles, former PNCR senior minister, questioned the polling methodology in the aftermath of the Murray challenge.
Therefore, it is from this position that the many complaints from Harding against the party must first be examined: Resistance to change, which meant perpetuating the current leadership structure, at all costs, even to the detriment of losing valuable members such as her.
Even Aubrey Norton, a party veteran, has had cause to criticize the unchanging culture of the PNCR, attributing this staid position to party leader, Corbin.
It is astonishing that this party, whilst in government, that had a vibrant women’s arm, the WRSM, and where women did play a prominent role, that there is no place for women in the decision making process, even one of Faith Harding’s undoubted stature.
Burnham must be turning in his grave. This can only mean that the party has abandoned the important platform of gender equality and the role of women.
Even the selection of the party’s Members of Parliament has not been without   controversy, with widespread condemnation of party leader Corbin’s deliberately imposing his will on the selection process, drawing heavy fire from, again, Aubrey Norton and other insiders.
As a matter of fact, there is seething discontent among the membership, over this particular interference by party leader Corbin. This points to yet another clear sign of a leader who intends to influence the direction of a party, of which, he is quite strangely still leader.
It is quite obvious, that someone of Dr. Harding’s intelligence, particularly her exposure to a dynamic international landscape, and given all that she has believed in and presented over the years, would have found it extremely difficult to continue in a party that lacks vision, and oblivious to the need for an internal overhaul.
Then there is the Granger factor. There is no doubt that his entry into national politics, as the PNCR presidential nominee, probably did save this party from further poll disintegration, if one were to have taken into account its performance at the previous 2006 elections.
That the party, under the umbrella of APNU has been able to reclaim its supporters lost to mainly the AFC, was in no small measure due to a re-energised strategy on the part of Granger and his new team, from which Corbin was missing during the campaign.
The interesting irony here is that the Granger-led APNU, of which the PNCR is the major constituent party, campaigned on a platform of change in terms as to governance.
But, thus far, there has been no public statement from this soldier–turned-politician as to the discontent among the general membership because of Corbin’s continuous presence at the party’s helm; what efforts has he personally undertake to reconcile with the progressives who have withdrawn active participation in the party’s activities, more so, his relations with Harding after the party’s nomination contest, especially her accusations against him of not even acknowledging her offer of working with his coalition.
How can he lead a coalition, inclusive of a party, that still has a leader, largely unpopular and resistant to change, and whose continuing presence is resulting in a haemorrhaging of party stalwarts clamouring for change? Further, how does he reconcile this conundrum, with his election call for change at the national level, with his silence, thus far, on an unchanged PNCR?