WILL DR. TERRENCE CAMPBELL SHAKE DR. IRFAAN ALI’S HAND?
The question posed in the headline might appear to be trivial. But behind it lies the fundamental issue of the PNCR’s reckoning with the election results and the policies it will adopt towards the Government and the PPP. The question many will ask is: Has the PNCR taken any lessons from its catastrophic loss in the elections? In 2006 a perceptive and courageous Robert Corbin figured out that the PNCR’s loss of 5 seats to the AFC was wholly or partially due to his leadership. He invited David Granger to be the presidential candidate. It appeared at that time that his intention was to remain Leader of the Opposition if Granger had lost the elections. But, having lost the elections, David Granger became Leader of the Opposition and Robert Corbin retired completely from politics. In the next electoral round, Granger became President.
The situation facing the PNCR at the present time is not identical but close. The difference is that the PNCR cannot win the post of Leadership of the Opposition because WIN has more seats in the National Assembly. And looking ahead, an alliance between PNCR and WIN cannot defeat the PPP at the next elections if the current electoral circumstances do not change. At the present time Aubrey Norton, Leader of the PNCR, has stated in more categorical terms than Robert Corbin did in 2006, that he intends to remain the party’s Leader and to work to rebuild the Party. Three questions arise. The first is whether the Party itself will retain the leadership of Norton? The second is, how can a leader that led the party to such a devastating defeat lead the rebuilding of the party? The third question is, what policies towards the PPP will underline the PNCR’s rebuilding?
The refusal of Aubrey Norton to shake the hands of President Ali when he attained the leadership of the PNCR signaled Norton’s more robust opposition to the PPP. The public would have expected public demonstrations and other such activities. But nothing came. Mr. Norton, schooled in the politics of street confrontation was unable to raise a single demonstration of consequence in five years. Mr. Norton failed to recognize that the ‘slow fire, mo’ fire’ moment of Desmond Hoyte had passed.
The success of the no confidence motion against APNU-AFC Government, and its consequential attempt to rig the elections of 2020, demonstrated that the circumstances forced the PNCR to re-engineer its militancy from street confrontations to courtroom dramatics. Mr. Norton’s approach to political campaigning, honed by the deployment of PNC’s street strategies of the early 1960s and the decade after 1992, were not transformed into anything new even though Guyana’s political landscape, including its parliamentary mechanisms, provides extensive potential for the development alternative approaches by opposition political parties.
Civil society’s complaint to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights in relation to the failure of the Commissioner to provide information requested, following the complaint of the Chinese Landing Village Council in relation to mining on their lands, point to the wide spectrum of opportunities that are available. Public law litigation in Guyana in relation to government and state bodies’ decisions are undeveloped and offers significant potential to promote and defend the public interests.
If Dr. Terrence Campbell refuses to shake the President’s hand at the opening sitting of the National Assembly, it will signal that Aubrey Norton is in control and/or that, whatever reflections have taken place in PNCR’s circles, the dominant sentiment remains that ‘confrontation’ politics (without the capacity to confront) remains the preferred strategy. However, the obverse is not true. If Dr, Campbell shakes the President’s hand, it may only mean the extension of a normal courtesy, without indicating any kind of change in policy. The approach of Sharma Solomon would be more interesting. He has been restricted by successive leaders of the PNCR to regional leadership, rather than being elevated to national leadership, where it may have been feared that exposure at the national level would result in an eventual challenge to the national leadership. But Sharma Solomon proved that he is not ready for the ‘big time’ when he also refused to shake the President’s hand. We await with anticipation.
The ethnic allegiances that determine political loyalty suggest that the PNCR/APNU will not, by itself, obtain a majority of votes to form the Government. It succeeded when it formed an alliance with the AFC. But the moment that the coalition got into government, complaints which grew increasingly intense, suggested that the PNCR/APNU had conceded too much to the AFC. Little consideration was apparently given to the notion by the PNCR/APNU that the concessions to the AFC beyond the latter’s perceived support was necessary to maintain the coalition and that continued concession was necessary to maintain the coalition. The PNCR is now faced with building an alliance with WIN but accept a minority position and a junior role. This is likely to be impossible for the PNCR to accept. The alternative is to seek an alliance with the PPP. But there may too much historical baggage to overcome before this can happen. But with new strategies, including coalition strategies, Guyana can have the ‘new politics’ which Norton advocated earlier in his career.
