OLD Kai experienced a slight rise in blood pressure after reading that the PNC is now accusing the People’s Progressive Party of being ‘unreliable and dishonest’ on the question of shared Governance and achieving National Unity. Clearly, the PNC leadership is not living in the same world as other Guyanese.The nation is well aware of the historic efforts by the PPP to forge national unity; after all, that was the principle it was founded on, through the National Patriotic Front, which was rejected by the PNC dictatorship at the time. But Old Kai will not focus on that period, least he be accused of reverting to the ‘past,’ a common excuse to deflect exposure by opposition elements. Rather, I will focus on the PNC post-1992.

In May 1996, the PPP/C had cause to accuse the PNC of reneging on an agreement for the rotation of the mayorship of the Capital City between the three parties represented at the M&CC. The PNC, in response, denied the existence of any such agreement, only for Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon to disclose that the meetings were “…between himself and representatives of the PNC, including its Chief Executive Officer, Malcolm Parris, Councillor Ranwell Jordan, and other representatives,” and were held at the Office of the President, when various elements of the arrangement were worked out.
The PNC had based their denial of such an agreement on the fact that there was ‘no written agreement’; but Dr. Luncheon had pointed out that the discussion was held in an atmosphere of ‘trust.’ The media had reported then, that when contacted for a response to Dr. Luncheon’s disclosure, Parris said, “No comment.”
A few years later, the very Mr. Parris was brutally attacked inside Congress Place because he had recognised the 2011 elections results, where the PPP/C again emerged victorious.
Then there are other instances where the PNC/R reneged on agreements with the PPP/C, such as support for nominees on Regional Democratic Councils, etc.
Then recently, no less a person than Alexi Ramotar had cause to point out during a discussion forum an instance where former President, Bharrat Jagdeo, had acceded to a request by the PNC/R to postpone Local Government elections, even though the PPP/C was ready. The young Ramotar had lamented that, “In retrospect, I think Mr. Jagdeo made a mistake there. Unfortunately, what happened in the 2011 elections, was that there was a change in the dispensation, and the now Opposition Party made massive changes to the agreement between the PPP and PNC. If you go back to the agreement between the PPP and PNC, you can have Local Government Elections tomorrow.”
Ramotar suggested that the former President should not have acceded to such a request from the PNC/R, but Old Kai would like to think this was yet another effort by the PPP/C Government to reach out to the PNC/R to build a climate of compromise and trust.
How can we forget that no less a person than Opposition Leader David Granger, Presidential Candidate of the PNC/R and their front group, APNU, initially agreeing with the government on electricity tariff increases in Linden to gradually bring it up to par with other parts of the country; only for him to renege on the agreement, and deny any such involvement, even though Prime Minister Samuel Hinds disclosed what actually transpired during an address in the National Assembly.
These are just but a few significant instances where the PNC and its aliases have demonstrated that they are ‘unreliable and dishonest.’ It is against this backdrop that the People’s Progressive Party recently pointed out that the onus is on the PNC-APNU to demonstrate their commitment to shared governance and national unity after a long list of incidents pointing to the contrary.
But when one takes into consideration a Stabroek News article on April 26, 2014 headlined “PNCR’s prime motivation is to regain reins of government – Williams,” which focused on comments by the Party’s Chairman and APNU Executive Basil Williams, it is easy to understand why their spokesperson, Joseph Harmon and the PNC/R would both rush to attack any initiative which would call upon them to demonstrate their commitment to the ideals they promote of shared governance and national unity.
Let us also not be fooled, as this is not the first such effort by the PPP to encourage the PNC/R demonstrate their commitment to such ideals, as in 2011 in the lead-up to the last elections, during an interview our current leader, President Donald Ramotar, on the issue of ‘trust’ was quoted as saying,“… in 2003, we came out with a proposal; it was presented to the public by President Jagdeo in the presence of myself and Prime Minister Sam Hinds, in which we said we were not closing the door to any kind of power-sharing, but we believed that we have to build trust in the society; that you can’t work within the executive arm of the government unless we trust each other.”
Again, this effort was being made by the People’s Progressive Party since 2003, over a decade ago, when it enjoyed a majority in the National Assembly. But, as has become customary, the PNC/R rejected any effort to build an atmosphere of ‘trust’ with the PPP/C.
It was the PPP/C that, while in the majority, had placed the opposition in several critical positions, including ensuring they permanently chaired the Public Accounts Committee responsible for overseeing and scrutinising all government expenditure. It was the PPP/C which, while in the majority, always ensured that the Deputy Speakership position always went to a member of the Opposition.
These were all efforts to enhance transparency and accountability, but equally important was building ‘trust’ with the opposition.
Based on this reality, it is easy to see why the call once again by the PPP to promote an environment for shared governance would be described by the PNC/R as “laughable and unworkable”, a “non-approach” and “setting up the conditions for there to be no such conversation whatsoever.”
What is so “laughable and unworkable” for the opposition to support the passage of the Anti-Money Laundering legislation which, by our non-compliance thus far, is affecting the entire country?
In concluding, those who are serious about gauging the commitment of the PNC/R/APNU towards shared governance and national unity simply have to assess their reaction towards the suggestions of the People’s Progressive Party. It was most aggressive; an all-out attack on the PPP, the General Secretary and the President. Were they really serious in achieving these ideals, one would reasonably expect that their response would have been mature and measured; looking at areas where the suggestions of the Ruling Party had merit, and committing to working at achieving agreement in areas where there was disagreement.
Launching a verbal attack on the PPP is not how one builds ‘trust,’ but rather ‘mistrust.’ Sadly, this is yet another clear example of where the PNC/R/APNU stands on the issue of Shared Governance and National Unity.