A DIFFERENT PNCR
March 18, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source
The Alliance For Change is perfectly right. The past should not enslave you. Even if you accept the premise that APNU is essentially the PNCR, the fact remains that the PNCR of today is fundamentally different from the PNCR of yesterday.
It is not the change that is worrying. All parties change. What is worrying has been the rapidity of those changes. Most of the changes have taken place within the past four years. In that short period, the PNCR has undergone fundamental changes.
There have been five discernible shifts within the PNCR: the disappearance of the Reform; the absence of some of the old stalwarts; an aging leadership; the sidelining of those who pioneered shared governance within the PNCR; and the pronounced presence within the PNCR leadership of former high-ranking military and police personnel.
Firstly, there is no longer a reform component to the PNCR. Most of the original members of the Reform are no longer part of the PNCR. They went into exile following the death of Desmond Hoyte. The Reform was a creature of Hoyte and after he died they made their exit in virtual single file from the PNCR. There were prominent business persons within the Reform component of the PNCR and this lent to the party’s thrust to re-brand itself following the end of its tenure in government.
The Reform was brought in to give the party a softer image. The absence of the Reform today has removed from the party an important aspect of its attempt to create a more business-friendly and moderate image.
Secondly, many of the old stalwarts of the PNC and the PNCR are no longer around. Some have grown old, some have died, and others have migrated and lost touch with the party. Many others have been left on the sidelines with little interest shown in utilizing their abilities or experience. A great many leaders and diehards have had their differences with the party and have been pushed out. Some of those differences were so strong that certain members opted not to renew their membership of the party.
If you look at the PNCR today you will find that many of the old stalwarts are not around. Many of them are on the sidelines and are not going to come back into the party’s fold, even though they are likely to support the party during the elections.
Thirdly, there is an aging leadership that is still in place within the PNCR. Despite all the emphasis on youth and the fact that youths are considered the most important demographic at election time, the leadership of the PNCR remains an aging one.
This is something that is noticeable about the top-leadership of the PNCR. Most of the top positions within the PNCR are occupied by the older generation. This was quite unlike the past when this was not the image that people had of the PNC and the PNCR. Hoyte, in fact, courted a great many young people and catapulted them to positions of authority within the party and leadership.
Fourthly, most of young brigade that led the struggle within the party for a new system of shared governance in the country have become either matured or have been sidelined. Many of them have found themselves in uncomfortable positions with the leadership. They are no longer an integral part of the top decision-making of the party. The proposals that were originally developed by them for a system of shared governance are gathering dust. They who were the ones best positioned to push these positions are no longer around. The talk is now mainly about national unity rather than power-sharing or shared governance.
Fifthly, there has been an invasion of the party by ex-members of the Disciplined Services. The PNCR is now referred to as the military party, because of the prominence of so many ex-members of the security services within the institution.
This is an important and worrying development within Guyana. Never before have so many former members of the Disciplined Services played such a central role in the leadership of any political party.
It raises eyebrows when one considers the rank which some of these individuals held and the fact they are now part of the political leadership of a major political party in the country.
How important this is to the party and to the country is something that has to be debated. But it must be a source of worry to the governing authorities that so many ex-members of the Disciplined Services have found leadership within the main opposition party. It does present an apparition of Guyana’s politics becoming increasingly militarized.
