A dark day for PNC party politics

TO say that much had been expected of retired Brigadier David Granger when he assumed the leadership of the People’s National Congress (PNC), in 2011, is to put it mildly. In most quarters, his ascension to the helm of that party, after defeating Carl Greenidge in a very close contest, was greeted with great optimism.It was the consensual view that he had not been involved in active party politics; and, that the latter, in addition to being an academic, allowed him the opportunity to bring a new perspective and life to the party, especially against the background of its poor showing at the 2006 elections at which it lost six seats, in addition to a reduced majority in its traditional safe Region 10.

Moreover, given Granger’s training as a historian, he would have understood the necessity for an internal house cleansing of the PNC, in terms of correcting its image after three decades of undemocratic rule. Even the internal party machinery was expected to be revamped, thereby removing the opportunities for any repeat of the 2007 shambles of an electoral challenge to then leader Robert Corbin, that had been marked by allegations of rigging.
Had these basic but important steps been taken, the near anarchic situation that unfolded at the PNC party’s 18th biennial congress would not have had such an occasion. In essence, the sum total of Granger’s stewardship from the time he had been elevated to party leadership, was exposed last Sunday.
As party leader the ultimate responsibility is his to ensure that disagreements and dissent of any kind are settled quickly, with differences settled, and all united.
Given the already simmering revolt of the Linden branch of the party, over the Vanessa Kissoon and Oscar Clarke clash, that eventually drew a three-month party suspension for Kissoon, advance complaints of party members from Linden not being accredited for the just concluded congress ought to have been given all prominence by Granger, particularly given the fact of veteran member, Aubrey Norton’s announced challenge for the leadership. It was obvious that Norton would have needed those delegates for ballot support. But, alas, it was not to be!
The pictorials carried in all of the daily media reflected on what can only be described as the darkest hour in the annals of political party history in this country. How can Granger still defend his party as being democratic when the gates to his party’s headquarters were locked, with security personnel in attendance, leaving his challenger Norton and the prominent Sharma Solomon and delegates outside, clamouring to gain entry, for the exercise of their membership franchise?
This was no accident, but instead a deliberate and orchestrated plan, designed to ensure Granger is returned to party leadership, unopposed. How can the latter claim to have been duly elected when his challenger had been prevented from being a part of the electoral process? How can he claim to support women as equal participants in the national political process, when there is a pictorial that illustrated a female party member, desperately trying to gain entry, by perhaps going over a section of the fence around Congress Place? What a dark day for PNC party politics, compliments to a leader who definitely does not believe in practicing inclusivity within the very party that elected him to its leadership in 2011, but trumpets about its necessity at State level.
What hypocrisy!