MORAL hazard is a term used in economics to describe a situation where people behave differently when sheltered from risk than they would when exposed to similar risk. In other words, people can act boldly and perhaps competently when they are supported (or perceived to be protected) by formidable authority figure.

The bold competent person loses potency when the protection is removed. This concept is not dissimilar to the “Peter Principle” in management. In that, a person can be promoted to a “level of respective incompetence.” That is to say, persons may be promoted based on success in their previous position to the point where they exceed their personal competence threshold.

Enter Aubrey Norton. In PNC circles, he was considered a political pitbull, a workhorse and competent political organiser of national repute. The government of the day took notice when Norton was on their heels. I’m not sure that anyone can successfully label Norton a political slouch at that level. Led by Hoyte, Corbin and Granger, Mr. Norton found the perfect big brother cover to pick political fights and be a political thorn in the flesh of the PPP government. At the last party leadership contest, Norton ran on his track record as a political organiser. On that level, his record outshone Joe Harmon’s; he was thus promoted to lead the PNC and the opposition in parliament.

In that instant, the pitbull became a poodle, the workhorse became a show pony, the opposition has no luster and is now the weakest opposition in the history of Guyana. Let’s take a quick detour to examine the tenure of every previous opposition leader of Guyana. Burnham became Prime Minister and President.

Jagan became president. Desmond Hoyte ran a competent opposition that won an election petition and cut short one term of the PPP. His tenure also saw a resistant PPP government agreeing to the Herdmanston Accord.
Robert Corbin formed APNU and its success sheet is long. Granger formed the APNU+AFC coalition and won power. Jagdeo’s brinksmanship got the coalition out of power.

Since Norton became Opposition Leader, The PNC lost two original members of APNU along with the coalition partnership with the AFC. Then PNC took the whooping of its life in the last LGE. The Office for the Leader of the opposition on Regent Street is ghost town.

Several scandals were reported in the press that indicate that Norton is hardly in control of his Party’s Central Executive. He didn’t get along with his treasurer, General Secretary and numerous other members of his executive. It is unprecedented that so many party stalwarts and towering political figures such as Granger, Harmon, Basil, Amna, Greenidge, Van West Charles and Bond, to name a few, have gone quiet and do not contribute to the day-to-day political life of the opposition.

Only political hardheadedness and incompetence on the part of the political leader can account for this predicament. This is a textbook case of the Peter Principle, a good party organiser is, in this case, an incompetent party leader. Norton was clearly promoted beyond his competence threshold. Incompetence as a leader is probably hardwired in his veins. Sooner than later the party rank and file will come to this realisation.

The AFC is now at its weakest since its inception, in fact, near dead, compounded by unprecedented membership attrition. Yet, most of the original thought and opposition motions so far in the current parliament came from its benches. That should say something about the state of the PNC under Norton. Norton’s own presentations are near empty. PPP’s GS Jagdeo is probably on point when he said that, “Norton is a low-level political operative who has no clue how to lead a party.”

Do you ever wonder why the government gives the opposition leader no time of day? Do you ever wonder why a handshake became the centerpiece of Norton’s political activism? Regardless of the party you support, deep in your heart, you know that Guyana will benefit from a formidable, sensible and strategic opposition, but Norton is not currently providing this kind of leadership.
That’s my take. What do you think of it?