Dear Editor,

Messrs Mark DaCosta and Tarron Khemraj’s letters (‘PNCR members can choose their leader wisely or foolishly’ and ‘Granger is the best leader to build a multi-ethnic coalition’ SN, July 22) epitomise the politics of window-dressing as against the politics of performance. The country has had too much of the former, while the latter presents the opportunity to rid this country of the deprivations that the gentlemen seek. There is no party leader in Guyana who has never been credited with the ability to attract multi-ethnic support – Mr Desmond Hoyte was even given the sobriquet Desmond Persaud.

Mr Khemraj informs us that Mr Granger is interested in constitutional reform, refashioning the role of president and prime minister and changing what he calls the “pernicious constitution.” What he fails to tell us is that Mr Granger is the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Constitutional Reform but for the past two years has done nothing to have this constitutional committee function, much less achieve reform. Likewise, Mr Granger is also credited for increasing votes in 2011. What has not been provided is the evidence to make credible the claims.

In major Amerindians location, Region 8 was won by the AFC and Region 9 retained by the PPP. The APNU recaptured Region 7 from the AFC, but made no inroads into the traditional PPP strongholds. In 2006 the PNCR1G lost a parliamentary seat to the AFC in Region 10 and recaptured it in 2011. Had Mr Khemraj looked at the numbers he would have seen the turnout of the PNCR’s base in south Georgetown was way below expectations.

Admittedly in 2006 the PNCR1G received 114,608 votes. Mr Khemraj failed to bring to his analysis some variables impacting on this election, such as, Robert Corbin’s initial position of ‘No verification, No election’; ACDA’s public appeal to African Guyanese not to vote given its concern about this group’s prospects in the extant political environment; the AFC’s decision to go to the poll impacting on the PNCR’s volte face, followed by the late Ms Sheila Holder’s public admission post-2006 that the AFC knew the electoral list was padded.

The 2011 elections was one for the opposition to lose given PPP misrule and abuse of the public purse and citizens. The political climate was made for the opposition, Granger and team. Closer analysis will note that in 2001 with a less favourable climate Hoyte won 166,090 votes. In those elections GAP/WPA won 9,519 and JFAP 2,824. If these numbers were at the minimum retained in 2011 and given the APNU partnership, it would have at least achieved 179, 433 votes. The APNU could have won the 2011 elections if it had worked to achieve what 4 parties together achieved in 2001! The PPP won the elections with 166,340 votes. APNU received 139,678 votes.

It is said Mr Granger’s “position on Linden demonstrates a dimension on his economic insights.” Given the reports of Mr Granger’s treatment of Linden, and Lindeners’ reaction to his (mis)treatment of them, what “economic insights” is Mr Khemraj talking about? Region 10 is considered a safe district for the PNCR and was recaptured in 2011 thanks to Aubrey Norton, Vanessa Kissoon, Sharma Solomon and team. But this region seems to get the brunt of Mr Granger’s resentment. Where is Granger’s economic plan for this region, and what has he done, using the opposition parliamentary majority, to make it real?

In fairness, inclusionary democracy is not a political aspiration of Mr Granger, but a component of governance required by the Guyana Constitution. Mr Granger could have helped the body politic had he practised this and meritocracy, another attribute ascribed to him. An analyst cited the WPA’s written concerns about his approach to governance (APNU and national) which exposes the inaccuracy of Mr Khemraj’s claim. Another example is the sidelining of Dr Faith Harding, a fellow presidential primary candidate, and exclusion of APNU’s hardest working MP, Mr Carl Greenidge from the PNCR Central Executive even though he has the power to co-opt members and campaigned on a platform that unity will guide his leadership of the party.

On democracy in the PNC that Mr DaCosta credits him for, Mr Granger inherited a structure in 2012. His management of this structure should be one reviewed with Congress this weekend, and there is already talk about his poor management of the party’s business, delegates and membership. The jury is still out. Have the stalwarts who left the PNCR returned or were they reached out to by Granger? Party membership under his leadership has declined. Disgruntlement among supporters and members is louder. Mr Granger ran on a platform promising a menu of measures in the party, and has only delivered on the publishing of the New Nation. In the meantime he has sold the party’s prized assets (GBTI shares and Sophia land).

On elections, in Region 8 where the AFC received the plurality of the vote, the party took the regional chairmanship and gave the APNU the vice-chairmanship. In Region 7 where the PNCR/APNU recaptured the plurality of the votes, it took both the chairmanship and vice-chairmanship. On Gecom, Hoyte had created a policy whereby the smaller parties were given a commissioner as part of the opposition’s allotment. When the opportunity came with the death of Mr Robert Williams, Mr Granger did not allow the AFC to fill the seat. The Justice For All Party (JFAP) has since quit the APNU, with Mr Jaipual Sharma saying the opposition did not give him support during his run-in with Ms Priya Manickchand.

On Mr Khemraj’s view that Mr Granger believes in the devolution of power to the people, he needs to explain APNU’s position on contesting the local government elections, which is an aspect of our governance structure that seeks to achieve the devolution of power. The PNCR under Hoyte allowed the communities to identify their leaders to run in the neighbourhood/village districts, and the party contested in the towns. Mr Granger’s approach seeks to centralise and control the people’s power in both villages and towns.

On meritocracy, in addition to being Leader of the PNCR and Opposition, and Chairman of the APNU and Committee on Constitutional Review, on the resignation of Ms Deborah Backer, Granger designated himself the Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs. Applying the principle of meritocracy, Aubrey Norton would have been the choice candidate given his expertise in the field. And even though Mr Granger holds this portfolio his policy position on Brazil, China, India and immigration remains unknown. Mr Granger wears five caps and has failed to perform adequately in any.

The examples Mr Khemraj cites as offering an insight into Granger’s economic philosophy evidently eludes critics, including the author of the claim who himself found it difficult to educate the readership. Mr Granger, to his credit, is associated with the phrase ‘A Good Life for all,’ which seems more like sloganeering than substantive economic philosophy, which is the source of critique.

Contrary to Mr Khemraj’s belief, there is no difference in the ethnic composition of protest led by Hoyte and Dr Walter Rodney. Both had similar characteristics, ie, they were urban based, predominantly African, but included other races. Therefore the fear of Hoyte-led protests and the need to replicate Rodney-led protests should pose no problem to Granger.

Mr Granger is no more multi-ethnic than any leader, present and past, with the only exception being Mr Ravi Devi’s ROAR, who made public his desire to only represent Indians and accommodated his leadership and strategy accordingly. On the matter of a party’s political base, every party knows the importance of its base. The base is a party’s bedrock. And in every base – because no base is monolithic – there are some who present embarrassing and difficult times for the leadership. This is not unique to the PNC, PPP or any political party, anywhere.

What seems to be unique is the desire of some to have the leaders (notably for the PNCR) abandon their base rather than persuade leaders in all political parties to educate their base to respect differences in the other, and share space and resources equitably. It is also instructive that Mr Granger is given credit for the Amaila Falls issue, and not Mr Greenidge who was the mastermind, but when APNU falters Granger is absolved from responsibility.

None of the persons (Barrington Braithwaite, Mike Persaud, Tarron Khemraj, Mark DaCosta) making a case for Mr Granger’s re-election as PNCR leader has been able to do so on his performance. And this is because they too know that he has fallen short. Likeability or association does not equal development; performance does. Those who desire the politics of performance, and have placed Granger’s performance under critical review and found deficiencies, have made them known. No spin can hide the facts.

Yours faithfully, 
Minette Bacchus