Democracy was at work at PPP congress workshops

Written by REGGIE BHAGWANDIN

Tuesday, 06 August 2013 19:37

PEEPING Tom claims that the leaders of the PPP stage managed the outcome of the workshops at the just concluded congress at Port Mourant. The problem with PEEPING is that you firstly have to be hidden or concealed and secondly you have to keep your distance from the object of your peeping so that you would not be caught. This unwarranted invasion of privacy most times leads to the wrong impression due to the Peeper’s inability to hear and see everything. The workshops at the PPP congress followed the universal norms associated with the conducting of any such activity. The discussions were moderated by a panel of PPP members that had direct responsibility for the topic under consideration. For example, the resource personnel for the workshop on Party Organization were the executive secretary, organising secretary and the political affairs secretary. Now are these not the relevant persons to listen to the participant views and in the position to respond to their queries? For the enlightenment of the Peeper, I had a close-up view of the discussions and what I heard and saw were old stalwarts giving dialectical analysis of the situation, new members expressing refreshing, unfettered views that reflected their newness and most of all the young comrades were a joy to behold in their forceful, radical and dynamic presentations. Democracy was at work and we are sorry for disappointing the PEEPERS in that what was the expected did not happen.

CONGRESS WAS EFFECTIVELY STAGE-MANAGED

The views  that emerged from the  url=http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2013/08/05/congress-was-effectively-stage-managed]various workshops[/url]

of the just concluded Congress of the ruling Peoples Progressive Party would have been, in the main, the views that the leadership wanted to be expressed. They do not in totality reflect the views of the membership because the deliberations at Congresses of the PPP are tightly-controlled by the leadership of the party and what emerges is what the leadership wants to be said. It was not surprising therefore to learn that the media actually had a mole within the Congress who was providing a running commentary on what was being discussed within specific workshops. That mole would have been planted by persons in authority so as to provide the media with certain facts that would inform the impressions the public made about the Congress. Amongst the impressions that were created was that there was a democratic and efficient system of voting. We were told, for example, that there was very little slack cut in relation to the voting process. If you did not have a delegate card, evenif you were a member and an accredited delegate, you were not allowed to vote. Also, the results of the vote were to be announced by yesterday. This was a demonstration of the efficiency of the process. What however still needs to be explained is the contention that some 1500 delegates were supposed to participate but less than this number of persons voted. Could this mean that many delegates absented themselves from the Congress? Or did a fair number of those present not bother to vote? The impression was also created that in the workshops, the delegates freely spoke their minds. But photographs of these workshops posted on the internet reveal that senior leaders of the party were prominent in these workshops and actually addressed the workshops rather than merely listening and offering advice from time to time. In short, the leadership kept a tight rein on these workshops and therefore what emerged from these deliberations would have been what the leaders wanted to emerge. Can you imagine the risk that some delegates would face if in the presence of certain leaders they had made personal criticisms of those leaders? The presence of the leadership in the workshops was therefore counterproductive to the free expression by the delegates. As expected, a great deal of blame was placed on the party machinery and structures for the failures of the party in the 2011 elections. As expected also, blame was heaped on the attitudes and lifestyles of some of the leaders of the party. A great deal of blame was equally laid on the lack of effective organization on the ground. Interestingly too, there was an admission of corruption. However what was not said was who was responsible for the neglect of the traditional machinery and structures within the party and who should be held accountable for the many failures identified. Not identified also were those leaders whose opulence has raised serious concerns about corruption within the government and which galvanized the supporters of the opposition to come out and vote against the PPP. It was not APNU’s machinery that led to a higher voter turnout at the elections. It was the lifestyle of some of the leaders of the PPP that outraged the opposition supporters. And when it comes to corruption, it is not surprising that there were calls for a mechanism to examine the integrity of the members of the party. This is tame cop-out by the Congress.  thereby reducing the entire Congress to a charade. In the end, the just concluded Congress of the PPP was an effectively stage- managed affair. There will be a few new faces in the leadership but the real power within the party remains with the Executive Committee. And you can bet you last dollar that the status quo in that grouping will not be significantly altered. Nothing much will change.