SATURDAY morning, while I was buying black pudding at Giftland Mall (I think David Hinds should know it is a Ukrainian, White woman who makes the pudding; hope he patronises the lady), the General-Secretary of the PNC, Sherwin Benjamin, stopped to chat. I asked him to pay for the pudding, he agreed, took out his money, but I told him I was joking.

I have known Sherwin long before he ever dreamt of becoming a party leader in one of Guyana’s two most enduring political parties. We were involved in a few human rights cases. He is an attorney-at-law.   Sherwin is a friend and a person I consider a decent human. A friendly, non-antagonistic person, Sherwin, I can safely say, is one of our better politicians.

There is something unique about Sherwin as a politician. I don’t think politicians should have such a quiet way of speaking. Politics and quiet speaking are opposites. The last time I saw him was earlier this year at my nephew’s funeral, so we didn’t get a chance to talk about the election campaign. We chatted as I waited to be served my Ukrainian black pudding and naturally, the 2025 election came up. I was stunned at Sherwin’s take on the election results, but I didn’t let my expression show. What Sherwin enunciated on the election results does not augur well for the future of the PNC.

If Sherwin’s perspective is held by other PNC leaders (and I believe they all do), then the PNC is not going to parliament after the 2030 election. Two adumbrations were untenable from Sherwin. First, he thought that the PNC’s showing had nothing to do with Aubrey Norton’s leadership. I disagreed.

The PNC lost a large amount of seats because African Guyanese did not consider Norton as leadership material. The crucial, deadly, destructive mistakes of Norton were countless and it began from the time he became leader. Some of the accusations against Norton as PNC leader were shocking. Even if they were not true, they were too damaging for Norton to survive.

Two accusations and four types of behavioural traits had weakened Norton’s grip on the leadership position of the PNC. The first was the declaration by the then Treasurer of the PNC, Mursaline Faiz, that he signed bank cheques at the request of Norton. The second one was the announcement by Vanessa Kissoon of sexual harassment.

Kissoon’s allegation brought back memories of a similar castigation against another PNC leader. Robert Corbin was accused by the daughter of Dr. Hugely Hanoman of sexual coercion. Nothing was proven against Corbin, but that incident left a permanent stain. Nothing was proven against Norton, but like Corbin, the credibility damage was permanent.

Four types of behaviour expressions left Norton so badly bruised that he became unelectable. All four of these behavioural styles made Norton a failed politician whom PNC constituencies frowned upon. One was his crassness in refusing to shake the President’s hand.

Secondly, his disrespect for the traditional values of the PNC by refusing to attend the funeral of the PNC’s iconic woman, Amna Ali. Thirdly, his autocratic style virtually gutted the PNC. And fourthly, his monumental stupidity in embracing the racist morbidity of the lunatic fringe that African Guyanese thought were mad people who were doing damage to the PNC.

Nigel Hughes and the AFC knew that Norton had become unelectable and that is why they urged a consensus candidate in a PNC-AFC coalition, either from outside the PNC or if it was to be from within the PNC, it shouldn’t be Norton. No one knows how many seats the coalition would have won, but it would have been more than the 12 it got and that would have been at the expense of WIN. To sum up, Norton was the decisive factor in the PNC’s masochistic obliteration in the 2025 poll.

The second adumbration of Sherwin was that the money of WIN played a large factor in the election results. Sherwin said he personally saw in South Ruimveldt, where he was assigned, that WIN was distributing money to people. Though I do not agree, WIN’s largess as a factor for its showing in the 2025 election has been amplified and exaggerated. In fact, this is an invention by the PNC to obfuscate the unlimited disgrace that it has to live with.

Two arguments can be used to question the efficacy of WIN’s money theory. One is that WIN picked up votes in several places where it did not visit and did not share out money. Secondly, WIN did not go to PPP constituencies and share out money.

The PNC needs to face reality. Africans voted for WIN because they rejected Norton’s leadership.

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.