AUBREY Norton knows that he will not be taken seriously. He knows that no human with knowledge of politics will believe him. He knows the hierarchy of his party will not buy into his methodology.

Norton is cruising for a PNC bruising. Norton’s electric bicycle is heading into a cul-de-sac where suck-sand is unavoidable. His willingness, as alleged, to assign mayors and councilors in the areas that the PNC won without the decisions made by the central executive (CE) may turn out to be Norton’s untergang (German word I like, meaning “downfall.”)

The leader of a party has tremendous avenue for swaying and cajoling. He has certain latitude by being party leader. But his hegemony is never complete unless he becomes a Castro or Putin where no one is prepared to stand up to him.

In the 21st century in the Caribbean, political parties after the Second World War produced some charismatic names whose parties accepted their wisdom and saw them as indispensable.
In Guyana – Dr. Cheddi Jagan, Janet Jagan, Forbes Burnham and Peter D’Aguiar; in Barbados, Errol Barrow; in Jamaica, Normal Manley; in Grenada, Eric Gairy; in Trinidad, Eric Williams and Rudranath Capildeo; in Antigua, Vere Bird; in Belize, George Price; in the Bahamas, Lynden Pindling, and in St. Lucia, John Compton.

In five instances, the leaders were so towering that there was no thought of anyone challenging them. Those were Jagan and Burnham in Guyana; Williams and Capildeo in Trinidad and Gairy in Grenada.

These were the pre-eminent anti-colonial leaders of the CARICOM region whose respective party members would never have dared to question. But as the post-colonial period ushered in economic survivalist pursuits and as these gentlemen grew older and faded off the scene, the days of party charisma were over.

Since the great anti-colonial leaders left the scene, CARICOM political parties have not produced charismatic leaders who dominated their parties. Maurice Bishop is the classic example of that new period. Tall, handsome, oozing charisma, Bishop had no equal in Grenada but that was not replicated in his party, the New Jewel Movement, where he was constantly challenged and eventually toppled. P. J. Patterson of Jamaica came close to the revered leader but was far from obtaining the loyalty that the pre-war leaders enjoyed.

In the 21st century in CARICOM territories, the situation is very fluid. Party leaders in government and in opposition do not have that manipulative control over their executives. Perhaps the best example of this in the 21st century in CARICOM is the Alliance For Change in Guyana. Highly dissatisfied with their leadership, the AFC rank and file planned at their January 2017 congress to topple their General-Secretary, one of the founders of the party.

Despite interventions by all the top founding names to save their colleague, he lost out to a rank and file candidate. For more on this aspect of party politics in the AFC, see the interview last week on the Gildarie-Freddie Kissoon Show with former AFC bigwigs – Leonard Craig and Audwin Rutherford.

Aubrey Norton is living in the past. He cannot command the PNC’s CE as Burnham and Desmond Hoyte did. Robert Corbin tried to do it but was met with stiff resistance from Norton himself and Vincent Alexander to the point where the quarrel between Corbin and Norton ended up in the High Court.

To mask Norton’s attempted totalitarian tentacles, the PNC’s chairman gave one of the most mediocre excuses. Shurwayne Holder said that there is no compulsion (my word) for the CE to choose the mayors and councillors.

He went on to state that the CE makes policies and the leader carries out the decisions. The crucial curiosity here is what Holder means by policy.

The mayor and city council of Georgetown and the town council of New Amsterdam are powerful local authorities. If the hierarchy of the PNC has no say in approving those names, then what provision in the PNC’s constitution allows for such a large jurisdiction to be left to the leader himself? Isn’t choosing the governors of Georgetown and New Amsterdam, part of policy-making? If not then what is policy-making?

Holder went on to contradict himself by saying those for consideration were met by a panel who interviewed them. Well, why a panel and not the CE itself. The panel is smaller than the CE, therefore, basic democratic principles should instruct Norton that the more people that choose you, the more democratic is the process.

The ongoing contretemps in the PNC do not auger well for the future of the party. It appears that sooner than later, Norton may become a historical footnote in the PNC.