AS the election season heats up, a potpourri of essentialists outpouring with all of its attending contrasts in full regalia (pun intended) are on display. As the faces, melanonid hues, economic status, occupational endeavours and educational attainment differ, so, too, are the political views of the population.

The variance of these viewpoints is given full expression in the fulfillment in our Constitution; this diversity ought to be celebrated. Beneath and between those expressions yield fertile grounds for analysis, rumination, and jocular banter.

The right of the citizens to switch parties is an unalienated right of the individual. When people switch parties, we often comment on their motivation as we perceive them, and use their activism as talking points. Just as individuals and their own popularity are political entities in their own right, political parties do crystalise and concatenate into an entity with its own character and modus operandi. The actions of political parties do give clues about their preferred MO.

The Aubrey Norton-led PNC seems to have a penchant for two main forms of political action when it comes to negotiating political relationships, either strong-arm or subterfuge. We need not look further than the relationship with the AFC. It is an electoral fact that the PNC has never won (historically) and very possibly is incapable of winning an election on its own under the current structure and configuration. So, it needed the AFC in 2015 to accede to the seat of government.

One would think that that kind of partnership, which stretched as far back as 2011, will deserve some amount of residual sentimental value and a soft negotiating hand. Instead, even while negotiations were ongoing with the official AFC executive, PNC met with and plotted with a subgroup to upstage the AFC by switching to the PNC in a move that blindsided the AFC, leaving it to flounder.

The analysis is beyond free will. All the persons in the “Activists Class” that switched to the PNC/APNU are from AFC, their own partner. APNU made a deliberate decision to directly target AFC’s most active personnel to build their “coalition”, with the overriding motivation to dodge making any formal commitment to AFC. They were brothers dwelling in the same house (the parliamentary opposition) which they built together. When AFC was ailing and broke, and needed love, protection and brotherhood, the PNC instead chose to slip a knife in the back of the AFC, enticed his woman, and then flaunt her in his face. This is called backstabbing, treachery, and betrayal.

The APNU has demonstrated that, given its MO, it cannot be trusted to act right by his own buddy and pal. Then, how can we trust it with government that is usually steeped in adversarial political relations? If PNC can be so savage with a brother, what wouldn’t they do to an “enemy”? I wouldn’t trust them with my vote, and I suspect most Guyanese wouldn’t either. The persons expressing their constitutional “free will” to move from the AFC to the PNC are simply moving to a new part of the same side of the house and do not reflect a new or different way of thinking. They are simply co-conspirators and conniving participants in the plot to degut the AFC.
In contrast, the PPP was able to attract significant members of the “activists-class” from both the AFC and the PNC. The true crossing of the floor has reached tsunamic proportions, and the tide continues to rise daily. Of course, we cannot ignore that there are formidable push factors, that just as many who left the PNC and crossed over to the PPP simply opted out of activism or went on to form new parties.

The push factors may be varied but all seem to lead back to Aubrey Norton and his leadership style. These activists cannot stomach to coexist with PNC’s MO under Norton. They have already voted with their feet. The big question remains: If they don’t trust their own leader, and wouldn’t be voting for him, why should I? Why should you?

Beyond the push factors, there are robust, enduring and unmistakable pull factors as demonstrated in the leadership of Dr. Irfaan Ali. Instead of vindictiveness, we see a party that is open to entertaining new views, accommodating people who spent years opposing, and have brought with them a different world view. We see a country that is well managed, a guiding political philosophy of inclusiveness, and an embrace of diversity.

The PPP is indubitably a stronger and more diverse political entity than it has ever been, outside the first few years of its founding. I completed writing this piece hours before the party campaign launch yesterday afternoon, and no doubt the images are already circulating by the time you read this column. Big visual support gains were made in every demographic. To the extent it is able to consolidate and protect these gains is the extent to which the magnitude of its majority will extend.

Today is Nomination Day, and usually the days following, we see political activism on steroids; a turbo-charged political atmosphere. The parties with the freshest political legs usually jump out early, but those with the largest purse, personnel and experience can keep a continuous momentum. In that respect, the PPP looms large.

Today, the PPP stands as the party of promise, the party most likely to deliver and the party that is by far more trustworthy. The choice is clear as we move together for a better Guyana.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.