I HAVE interacted with each of the major parties enough to make a judgment on their modus operandi. Of course, I gave 15 years of service to the AFC and interacted with the PNCR at the operational level quite a bit during the period of coalition, and over the last two years, my political sojourn brought me close to the PPP/C.
At the basic organisational level, there is a sameness to each of these parties. When it comes to interpersonal demeanour, political character, public morals, political acumen and general civic vistas, we can find people of all shapes and sizes, at all levels who can be characterised negatively or positively on any political matter under consideration — in any of the parties. Political parties at the essential level all do the same thing; they try to, at the very least, maintain their core support base. Some may do it more efficiently than others, but they do the same thing, fundamentally. It is my settled determination that, apart from a few exceptions, almost any activist of any of the three parties can find functional relevance in either of the other parties.
Among the three larger parties the PPP/C is set apart from both PNC and AFC. I do not accept the theory that the PPP/C has, at its core, superior individuals to those found in other parties. The immediate question arises: if the three parties have people with characteristic sameness, then how are these parties distinguishable or what factors can set them apart? Under discussion today are two major things that account for that: group dynamics and the halo effect.
What sets the PPP/C apart from the others, more than anything else, is its leadership relational philosophy. The starkest evocative would be the way in which the individual parties treat with members who slip into a cold relationship, for whatever reason, with the party leadership. The approach the AFC has taken over the years is that, as long as the core leadership cabal remains intact, they don’t care who leaves. I can rattle off more than 50 significant activists who left the party and there was no effort made at reconciliation and reintegration. We need not look further than Dominic Gaskin, a significant member of the leadership cabal, said on the Freddie Kissoon Show that since leaving the AFC no one has approached him to attempt reconciliation. They simply consolidated the cabal and tried to salvage face by bringing back Nigel Hughes who was always regarded as a life-long member of the party elite. While the current crop of leaders remains alive, they will never turn over leadership to anyone outside that group; choosing instead to remain politically haughty.
The PNC is more extreme: when members have struggles with the leadership, they are ostracised even before they actually make a decision to leave. In more recent memory we can think of Odinga Lumumba, Joe Hamilton, Africo Selman and, of course, Vanessa Kissoon and Amna Ally. I saw firsthand the level of poisonous, vehement disdain Sharma Solomon was subjected to while the coalition was in power. He endured some savage estrangement that will take a book to reveal. The PNC has a culture of brutally cannibalising those who have conflicts with party leadership, very few survive.
On the other hand, the PPP has an internal, systemic, damage-control mechanism that kicks into action when strife arises. Nobody gets into conflict with all the leaders of a political party at once. What the PPP does that neither AFC nor PNC does, as a matter of course, is pair the person expressing anhedonia with other leaders with whom they share affability. In so doing, a working relationship is maintained with the party and the disengagement process is either significantly slowed or abated. This is the main reason why, over the years, the PPP/C has had significantly lower attrition rates when compared to the PNC and the AFC, either in or out of government.
The other aspect is the halo effect. I am referring to a situation where the members see the main leadership figures as having some special skill or keen awareness that can deliver the party from whatever corner it is backed into. In exchange, the membership express solid confidence in their figurehead(s). AFC leadership lost their halo while in government because they shirked their pastoral responsibilities in favour of personal aggrandisement.
Over in the PNC, recovering from the leadership dross associated with Robert Corbin, there was no brighter halo than the one worn by David Granger since the signing of the Cummingsburg Accord. However, by the time his government was 18 months old he was labelled as aloof and the halo began to dim. In the PPP, Dr Jagan had a special magic of inspiration.
After his passing, Bharrat Jagdeo used state power to establish himself as a formidable party leader. He survived attempts from within to dilute his influence but because of his unmatched political acumen in the current political era, his political halo remains strong.
While the PPP does not necessarily have superior individuals comprising it, it is doing better in politics because of its group ethos and stronger leadership. I made the point recently that the PPP of today is more open and inclusive than at anytime since its founding. Those who are interested in coming on board should do so without fear of being labelled. Don’t let anybody define a box for you, make your contribution to your country wherever you think it is most effective.