A big slap in the face of licensed firearm holders

Dear Editor,
Dr Baytoram Ramharack this week penned a scathing critique on PPP governance that partly contributed to its defeat at last May’s polls: the Party alienated too many of its supporters and influential people or was too arrogant as Bharrat Jagdeo put it.
And PPP General Secretary Clement Rohee recently roasted me for penning a critique of PPP for not seeking reconciliation with estranged (as well as excommunicated) members (Nagamootoo and Ramkarran) and those it alienated.
Admittedly, the timing of a critique on the PPP is not appropriate (now that it is in Opposition and the ruling APNU/AFC coalition has been persecuting PPP supporters). But the PPP leadership has not shown that it has learnt any lessons from defeats in 2011 and 2015 as it has not taken measures to reconcile with critics or pursue reforms.
It appears that PPP leadership is stuck in a time warp and not prepared to heed (friendly) advice to make it electable whenever the next election is held. Unless the Party heeds advice of independent political experts and stop seeing every critic as an enemy, it will remain in Opposition for a long, long time.
A critical problem facing PPP is elements among its leadership have been around so long and their thinking is from the Stone Age that when they are accustomed to a bad smell for a long time, they become insensitive and immune to it and as such don’t smell an thing foul.
The leadership has built a wall to prevent new ideas from seeping in and the leadership has become very arrogant as even Bharrat Jagdeo confessed when given realpolitik advice.
Elements in the leadership and some Party workers did not pay attention to the endless complaints of supporters and members in the last several years of governance in which supporters virtually begged for service, reconciliation and democratic reform to save the PPP Government from losing the elections.
The leadership was stone deaf and blind to appeals for internal change and paid a hefty price with loss of office. The Party leaders should not remain nose insensitive or visually blind, but they so remain. They need to get out of those conditions and socialise with people to find out how people view them. They will be shocked to find that their own supporters despise many in the leadership.
The leadership has shown it is not open to critiques of flaws and blunders made in Government and in Opposition. Such behaviour will not ingratiate it with voters come next general election.
The PPP leadership must not view every critique as anti-PPP. The era of “if you are not with us, you are against us” is long gone. The PPP leadership has to be open to criticism and heed suggestions on how to transform it into a modern party that will appeal to defected supporters and new voters. Otherwise, it will remain in Opposition for a long time.
Unless the Party heeds current warnings and accept critiques for what they are, it will not win the next general election.

At any rate, voters expect elections to be rigged. Reforming the PPP and reconciling with excommunicated members will increase manpower and more watchful eyes to help reduce avenues for rigging and improve the PPP’s chances at the polls.
In 40 years of studying politics, I have learnt there are no permanent enemies. There are permanent interests. The leadership should and must always think of what is in the best interests of its supporters. It should not be the best interests of a select few (out of ego to get back at perceived enemies or critics) – which cost it the Government.
What harm would have been done if the leadership had reconciled with Ralph Ramkarran who was excommunicated in 2012 or Nagamootoo who was forced to quit in 2011? Would the Party not have remained in office winning majorities? Is it not better to be in office rather than in Opposition?
After the Party lost its majority in 2011, why did it not support Nagamootoo as Speaker as proposed by AFC when incumbent Ramkarran was not viable. The PNC (renamed APNU) made it clear it would not support Ramkarran or Naga.
Why then did the PPP persist with the candidacy of Ramkarran who himself had earlier endorsed the idea of Naga as Speaker. Ramkarran recognised 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 Raphael Trotman) and deputy speakership to a PNC member rather than to an ex-PPP member in the name of Nagamootoo.
The Party was warned about that position by independent friendly advisers who it viewed as critics. How did the PPP benefit from making Trotman Speaker? Did such a position promote the interest of the Party and its supporters? Was that not arrogance at its worst leading to further political fallout from among its supporters. Had Naga been supported by PPP as Speaker in 2011, it would have paved the way for reconciliation preventing loss of power in May 2015?
PPP was advised in 2011 to start introspecting for so many errors. Five years later, it is yet to begin the process. It needs to identify the root causes of its loss of support and not apply a “quick fix” or blame others for the problems facing it. This will bring temporary relief, but the structural problems won’t vanish. It must get independent experts to analyse issues confronting it. And it must seek solutions to internal conflict from both scientific and experiential perspectives – it cannot afford to have permanent enemies or refuse to engage with critics.
There are some in the PPP who prefer to have PNC rule them rather than accept friendly critiques just like how it was willing to accept a PNC Speaker rather than a former PPP member who defected. The PPP must be prepared to change the way it functions and how it perceives critics in an attempt to resolve many challenges seemingly affecting its chances at the next election.
The Party has to change its mores so that it can win back office. The Party needs to look at itself and its reactions to critics. The Party cannot do things the same way and expect different results. It must also open itself to outsiders in leadership positions.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram