IN 2007 when I was nominated to contest for the position of Leader of the PNCR, I articulated that the leader or a leader of the PNCR need not be its presidential candidate. The view then was that the party, in its desire to enter into a broad electoral alliance, should not enter into conditional negotiations. It was also felt that a non-PNCR leader, as the candidate, could attract voters who would not vote for an alliance with a PNCR leader as the presidential candidate. The state of the party also necessitated a dedicated leader. There was much internal party work to be done.
In 2011, against this said background, the PNCR invited nominations for the position of presidential candidate and stipulated that the candidate need not be a party member.
Mr. Granger won that contest and went on to be accepted by an alliance, APNU, as its presidential candidate. At that time, Mr. Granger when questioned, about separate persons holding the positions of party leader and presidential candidate, articulated that they need not be the same and embraced the idea of Mr. Corbin continuing as leader. He argued then that Corbin, with his knowledge of the party and his political experience, was well poised to spearhead the rebuilding of the party while he, Granger, focused on alliance and parliamentary politics. Team and division of labour were the mantra.
Arguably, the views held then proved correct and the alliance, APNU, with a candidate other than a leader from the PNCR, performed credibly and recovered seats that the PNCR lost in 2006. This was the stark reality in Regions 4, 10 and 7.
It is therefore surprising that Mr. Granger on the occasion of the anniversary of the fledgling alliance now finds favour with the position that the two offices should be held by one person and offers himself as that person, although not much has changed to justify his change of heart and view, on the matter. In fact, the position of Leader of the Opposition, which is a broad-based fledgling alliance, demands his attention on two fronts:

1. Leading the alliance which must be naturally challenging and demanding and
2. Building the alliance which undoubtedly requires deep thought and much energy and astute leadership.

With each party having its leader in the leadership of the alliance, APNU, it would serve the alliance well to have a leader who could stand above the fray and command the position of leader of the alliance rather than being boxed into the corner of one of the partners.
It would also serve the alliance well to have a leader who could be arbiter, rather than a representative of a partner, not to mention the benefit that could be derived by adding another capable person to the collective, the team.
The PNCR and APNU owe it to themselves to prevail on Mr. Granger to let wisdom prevail in the interest of all concerned (APNU, PNCR).