Submitted by Rickford Burke (Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy)
McAllister’s recall crosses the line. It was vindictive and undemocratic, and should not be accepted by PNC members. They must eschew visceral blind loyalty to a failed leader, and demonstrate political grit, sophistication and nimbleness of thought. Dictators who become menacing liabilities and whose actions are inimical to their interest should not benefit from their confidence.
Diminished by blistering criticism of his dictatorial propensities and calls for his resignation, Corbin appeared on Sharma TV last Tuesday as defiant and delusional as ever. He argued that he was elected by his “membership,” and that only that “membership” can determine his fate at the next elections in 2009.
But the PNC’s “membership” alone doesn’t finance the party and produce the votes to win elections. Our body politic, as currently formalized, intrinsically amalgamates the destiny of the political minority to the PNC. Broad support from the national polity is therefore indispensable to its viability.
The party is inexorably at a crossroad. Does it countenance its leader’s despot-like grip on power or act in its own strategic, permanent interest? The choice is clear. Blind loyalty to Corbin propels it to a precipice of doom.
Since he assumed the leadership in 2002, the party has declined significantly; lost six seats in the Parliament, and many others in local government councils, in the 2006 general elections – its biggest electoral defeat in history. The Party also suffered three major rifts under Corbin and over fifteen top executive members have left the party.
In 2005, Raphael Trotman and a team broke-away and coalesced with others to form the Alliance for Change (AFC). In 2006, the Reform faction of the PNCR coalition also broke away over differences with Corbin. Now team Alexander has left the party.
Furthermore, Corbin has failed to adequately represent his constituencies, improve the party’s political and financial fortunes and mount a robust opposition to the PPP’s ethnocracy. No leader of a modern political party, with such a sordid record can survive discharge.
I did not support Alexander’s candidacy for leader but respect his right to seek any office in accordance with the party’s constitution. This is what democracy is all about; freedom of thought and choice. Corbin is an antiquity of the PNC’s past. But with today’s paradigm shifts, his vendetta against Team Alexander is not only repugnant to the party’s own constitution; it contravenes the fundamental tenets of democracy.
Instead of engaging in clandestine maneuvers with President Bharrat Jagdeo to amend the constitution to facilitate the recall of MPs, Corbin should have collaborated with Jagdeo to correct the thoughtless constitutional amendment, which he supported, that made members of the Elections Commission permanent instead of the institution itself. This is proof certain of his nomadic, whimsical leadership.
He is hung up on Team Alexander’s inclusion of executive committee minutes in pleadings to the Supreme Court in a 2007 lawsuit. Although a better approach would have been an in-camera proffer to the court, what is so impermissible about Team Alexander’s court filings that it warrants expulsion and recall from Parliament? Is the PNC the “Red Army”? The correct course, in the interest of unity, should have been reprimand and, if necessary, a modus vivendi regarding their reintegration into the party’s hierarchy.
Corbin’s failed leadership places the political minority in imperil. He has been disabled from accomplishing a basic opposition function of mobilizing national, regional and international opinion against Guyana’s “narco-dictatorship;” a regime that countenances torture; is complicit with the Phantom death squad and drug dealers; is notoriously corrupt according to Transparency International, and which through passive disengagement, appears to embrace extrajudicial killings.
This, notwithstanding, Corbin’s salient achievement for 2007 was collaboration with this said regime to enact recall legislation. His supreme accomplishment of 2008 was his vindictive use of the recall legislation to remove McAllister from Parliament. At this juncture, when the party is teetering on the brink of political émigré, Corbin’s priority should be unity, rebuilding and regrouping. Not axing perceived opponents.
A modern society cannot tolerate undemocratic, vindictive political leaders with the predilections of power-maniacs. Baring legitimate cause, including public corruption, misfeasance, malfeasance or any other breach of oath, Corbin cannot justify his arbitrary removal of McAllister from Parliament, just for lacking personal loyalty to him. Consequently, the time has come for party elders to ask Corbin to step down. He must resign to halt dictatorship and permit the coagulation of a vibrant, democratic milieu with new leadership and a new vision.
Those who wish to see the preservation of the PNC must do the right thing and advocate for new leadership that can inspire that self-preservation. The party is at its nadir. Corbin has been a monumental failure. His is compromised and has lost the confidence of the masses. It is the masses that will have to vote for the PNC to take it from where it is now to where it wants to be – in government.
Which is more important to the PNC, a belligerent, dispensable Corbin or the indispensable vote of the people?
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.