CAN THE PPP NOW BROADEN ITS POLITICAL APPEAL?
Prior to the September 1 elections, it appeared that the PPP and PNCR were forever destined to be considered as ethnic parties because they obtained their support largely from the two major ethnic groups that make up the Guyana population. The size of the these groups, when considered against the political support generally received by the PPP and PNCR, suggests that each attracts support from outside their traditional bases. It is known that the PPP attracts support from the Amerindian community and the PNC from the Mixed population.
The PPP has steadfastly maintained that it is not an ‘Indian’ party, that it attracts votes from all ethnic groups and that it intends to continue pursuing a multi-ethnic appeal, particularly from the African Guyanese section of the population. The PNCR had claimed much of the same. However, in recent years, the steadfastness of its adherence to the concept of itself as a multi-ethnic party has come under challenge by two factors. These are its dedicated advocacy as a major political plank of the rights of African Guyanese on the ground of alleged discrimination and marginalization and the uncritical embrace of prominent individuals who characterize the PNCR by word and deed as a party for African Guyanese.
The results of the September 1 elections shattered any view that the PNCR’s advocacy of the rights of African Guyanese resonated with the latter. It would be difficult to accurately pinpoint the detailed reasons and circumstances that triggered the wholesale abandonment of the PNCR by its supporters in the absence of a detailed study. But the mass migration of former PNCR supporters to WIN, a party led by a wealthy Indian Guyanese businessman, suggests at least that the policy of confrontation with the PPP on the ground of ethnic discrimination and marginalization no longer resonates with PNCR supporters. It also suggests that other issues, maybe the need or desire for material benefits, overwhelmed the need for ethnic security. Mohamed’s campaign was built around ‘bad’ policies, not ethnic security.
The leader of WIN is now facing serious charges brought against him by the United States. It may be that at some point in the future the US will seek extradition. If that happens Mr. Mohamed will certainly contest it. Whether or not Mr. Mohamed retains his freedom to undertake his duties as Leader of the Opposition for a full term, his supporters will soon realise that their expectations, whatever those are, in transitioning from PNCR/APNU to WIN, will not materialize. The possibility will therefore emerge that such dissatisfaction can or may cause them to seek out a new political home. They can return to the PNCR/APNU, which is an unlikely possibility, having just left it, or be recruited as PPP supporters. The PPP should reach out.
The reasons were many why the PPP retained its political support in the darkest days of authoritarian rule. Ethnicity was certainly one factor. The PPP’s courageous resistance was another. Constantly widening the struggle by joining with other forces such as trade unions was a third. But one important factor was its commitment to organisation. The depth and scope of this aspect of the PPP’s work, by many teams going on house to house visits every Sunday, year after year, decade after decade, was responsible for developing its daunting mobilization capacity at election time and otherwise. The agenda for house-to-house visits were basic – recruiting members, selling party literature, fund raising and discussing the PPP’s work, socialism and current affairs.
Two events occurred that gradually altered the trajectory. Socialism fell in 1989 and the PPP took office in 1992. The PPP’s formidable house-to-house mechanism, which was a duty imposed on every member, slowly faltered. Its fundamental premises, namely, promoting socialism, the struggle for free and fair elections and building the party no longer provided the impetus for this essential political work, which is a tried and tested political technique worldwide. The collapse of house-to-house campaigning as a year round activity had its impact eventually in the collapse of PPP’s support in 2011 and 2015, although it was not the sole reason.
If house-to-house campaigning is resumed with a revised agenda to accommodate the vastly different circumstances that exist today as opposed to the 1970s and 1980s, and the weakening of PNCR/APNU’s grip on ethnic voting, the PPP ought to be able to make inroads into the PNCR/APNU’s political support that has migrated to WIN as well as among those who remain with the PNCR.
The results of the September 1 elections prove that infrastructure works, vast strides in education and health and high GDP figures are not enough to attract a significant increase in support in the face of rising prices, inflationary pressures and continuing poverty. Regular community visits and interactions by Ministers are also not enough. A restructured and refashioned house-to-house programme is needed. It can concentrate on investigating and satisfying the peoples’ needs, issues and concerns and seeking to resolve them. As a permanent feature of political work, coupled with empathetic governmental outreaches that talks with and not down, that actually have impacts on resolving problems, rather than taking complaints and having no follow up, as is often the case. A restructured and renewed approach to political campaigning will earn major political dividends.
