Some in the PPP leadership have shown they are not open to critiques of blunders made by the party in government and in opposition. Such behavior will not ingratiate it with independent minded voters needed to win an election; in fact, voters are turned off by the behavior of some in the leadership. The PPP leadership has to be opened to criticism and heed suggestions on how to transform into a modern party that will appeal to defected (former) supporters and new voters.
Elements in the leadership and some party workers did not pay attention to the endless complaints of supporters and members in last several years of governance in which supporters virtually begged for reconciliation with dissenters and democratic reform. The leadership was tone deaf and blind to appeals for internal change and paid a hefty price with loss of office. Unless the party heeds current warnings and accept critiques for what they are, it will not win the next general election. Reforming the PPP and reconciling with excommunicated members will not hurt the party and instead will increase its chance at the polls.
The party tends to look at those who defect from it calling betrayers. As a case in point is Moses Nagamootoo. Moses did not betray the PPP. If any betrayal took place, it was the other way around as many (former) PPP members and supporters felt betrayed by the leadership’s actions (viewed as arrogant even by Bharrat Jagdeo) that cost it the majority in 2011 and government in 2015.
The behavior of some in the PPP leadership reminds us of that of a Richmond Hill lawyer now serving jail. In his obsession to win political office, the lawyer was given countless suggestions on how to avoid legal troubles and even to avoid jail when he was indicted for a petty violation of election law that others also breached and subsequently “let off” by paying a fine. The lawyer ignored all the advice and lost a court trial and now in jail. Analogous to the jailed lawyer, had the PPP leadership heeded the countless suggestions and advice given to it over the years by independent individuals who had the party’s best interests in mind, the party would have avoided the pitfalls it now finds itself.
After the party lost its majority in 2011, it could have supported Naga as Speaker as proposed by AFC when incumbent Ramkarran’s candidacy was not viable. The APNU made it clear it would not support Ramkarran or Naga saying it did not want an ex-PPP or PPP member as head of Parliament. Why then did the PPP persist with the candidacy of Ramkarran who himself had earlier endorsed the idea of Naga as Speaker. Ramkarran recognized PNC would not support him even though Ramkarran was perhaps the most neutral and objective Speaker in the history of the parliament and the best person for the job. The PPP was prepared to give the speakership to an ex-PNC (now AFC) and deputy speakership to a PNC (late Deborsh Backer) rather than to an ex-PPP in the name of Nagamootoo. The party was warned about that position by independent friendly advisors and even by Ramkarran. How did the PPP benefit from that obstinate anti-Naga position? That was not promoting the interest of the party and its supporters. The party needs to identify the root causes of its loss of support and not apply a “quick fix” to or blaming others for the problems facing it.
Vishnu Bisram
