Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Granger’s performance has been found wanting

Posted By Staff Writer On July 25, 2014 @ 5:06 am In Letters | No Comments

Dear Editor,

Messrs Mark DaCosta and Tarron Khemraj’s letters (‘PNCR members can choose their leader wisely or foolishly’ and ‘Granger is the best leader to build a multi-ethnic coalition’ SN, July 22) epitomise the politics of window-dressing as against the politics of performance. The country has had too much of the former, while the latter presents the opportunity to rid this country of the deprivations that the gentlemen seek. There is no party leader in Guyana who has never been credited with the ability to attract multi-ethnic support – Mr Desmond Hoyte was even given the sobriquet Desmond Persaud.

Mr Khemraj informs us that Mr Granger is interested in constitutional reform, refashioning the role of president and prime minister and changing what he calls the “pernicious constitution.” What he fails to tell us is that Mr Granger is the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Constitutional Reform but for the past two years has done nothing to have this constitutional committee function, much less achieve reform. Likewise, Mr Granger is also credited for increasing votes in 2011. What has not been provided is the evidence to make credible the claims.

In major Amerindians location, Region 8 was won by the AFC and Region 9 retained by the PPP. The APNU recaptured Region 7 from the AFC, but made no inroads into the traditional PPP strongholds. In 2006 the PNCR1G lost a parliamentary seat to the AFC in Region 10 and recaptured it in 2011. Had Mr Khemraj looked at the numbers he would have seen the turnout of the PNCR’s base in south Georgetown was way below expectations.

Admittedly in 2006 the PNCR1G received 114,608 votes. Mr Khemraj failed to bring to his analysis some variables impacting on this election, such as, Robert Corbin’s initial position of ‘No verification, No election’; ACDA’s public appeal to African Guyanese not to vote given its concern about this group’s prospects in the extant political environment; the AFC’s decision to go to the poll impacting on the PNCR’s volte face, followed by the late Ms Sheila Holder’s public admission post-2006 that the AFC knew the electoral list was padded.

The 2011 elections was one for the opposition to lose given PPP misrule and abuse of the public purse and citizens. The political climate was made for the opposition, Granger and team. Closer analysis will note that in 2001 with a less favourable climate Hoyte won 166,090 votes. In those elections GAP/WPA won 9,519 and JFAP 2,824. If these numbers were at the minimum retained in 2011 and given the APNU partnership, it would have at least achieved 179, 433 votes. The APNU could have won the 2011 elections if it had worked to achieve what 4 parties together achieved in 2001! The PPP won the elections with 166,340 votes. APNU received 139,678 votes.

It is said Mr Granger’s “position on Linden demonstrates a dimension on his economic insights.” Given the reports of Mr Granger’s treatment of Linden, and Lindeners’ reaction to his (mis)treatment of them, what “economic insights” is Mr Khemraj talking about? Region 10 is considered a safe district for the PNCR and was recaptured in 2011 thanks to Aubrey Norton, Vanessa Kissoon, Sharma Solomon and team. But this region seems to get the brunt of Mr Granger’s resentment. Where is Granger’s economic plan for this region, and what has he done, using the opposition parliamentary majority, to make it real?

In fairness, inclusionary democracy is not a political aspiration of Mr Granger, but a component of governance required by the Guyana Constitution. Mr Granger could have helped the body politic had he practised this and meritocracy, another attribute ascribed to him. An analyst cited the WPA’s written concerns about his approach to governance (APNU and national) which exposes the inaccuracy of Mr Khemraj’s claim. Another example is the sidelining of Dr Faith Harding, a fellow presidential primary candidate, and exclusion of APNU’s hardest working MP, Mr Carl Greenidge from the PNCR Central Executive even though he has the power to co-opt members and campaigned on a platform that unity will guide his leadership of the party.

On democracy in the PNC that Mr DaCosta credits him for, Mr Granger inherited a structure in 2012. His management of this structure should be one reviewed with Congress this weekend, and there is already talk about his poor management of the party’s business, delegates and membership. The jury is still out. Have the stalwarts who left the PNCR returned or were they reached out to by Granger? Party membership under his leadership has declined. Disgruntlement among supporters and members is louder. Mr Granger ran on a platform promising a menu of measures in the party, and has only delivered on the publishing of the New Nation. In the meantime he has sold the party’s prized assets (GBTI shares and Sophia land).

On elections, in Region 8 where the AFC received the plurality of the vote, the party took the regional chairmanship and gave the APNU the vice-chairmanship. In Region 7 where the PNCR/APNU recaptured the plurality of the votes, it took both the chairmanship and vice-chairmanship. On Gecom, Hoyte had created a policy whereby the smaller parties were given a commissioner as part of the opposition’s allotment. When the opportunity came with the death of Mr Robert Williams, Mr Granger did not allow the AFC to fill the seat. The Justice For All Party (JFAP) has since quit the APNU, with Mr Jaipual Sharma saying the opposition did not give him support during his run-in with Ms Priya Manickchand.

On Mr Khemraj’s view that Mr Granger believes in the devolution of power to the people, he needs to explain APNU’s position on contesting the local government elections, which is an aspect of our governance structure that seeks to achieve the devolution of power. The PNCR under Hoyte allowed the communities to identify their leaders to run in the neighbourhood/village districts, and the party contested in the towns. Mr Granger’s approach seeks to centralise and control the people’s power in both villages and towns.

On meritocracy, in addition to being Leader of the PNCR and Opposition, and Chairman of the APNU and Committee on Constitutional Review, on the resignation of Ms Deborah Backer, Granger designated himself the Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs. Applying the principle of meritocracy, Aubrey Norton would have been the choice candidate given his expertise in the field. And even though Mr Granger holds this portfolio his policy position on Brazil, China, India and immigration remains unknown. Mr Granger wears five caps and has failed to perform adequately in any.

The examples Mr Khemraj cites as offering an insight into Granger’s economic philosophy evidently eludes critics, including the author of the claim who himself found it difficult to educate the readership. Mr Granger, to his credit, is associated with the phrase ‘A Good Life for all,’ which seems more like sloganeering than substantive economic philosophy, which is the source of critique.

Contrary to Mr Khemraj’s belief, there is no difference in the ethnic composition of protest led by Hoyte and Dr Walter Rodney. Both had similar characteristics, ie, they were urban based, predominantly African, but included other races. Therefore the fear of Hoyte-led protests and the need to replicate Rodney-led protests should pose no problem to Granger.

Mr Granger is no more multi-ethnic than any leader, present and past, with the only exception being Mr Ravi Devi’s ROAR, who made public his desire to only represent Indians and accommodated his leadership and strategy accordingly. On the matter of a party’s political base, every party knows the importance of its base. The base is a party’s bedrock. And in every base – because no base is monolithic – there are some who present embarrassing and difficult times for the leadership. This is not unique to the PNC, PPP or any political party, anywhere.

What seems to be unique is the desire of some to have the leaders (notably for the PNCR) abandon their base rather than persuade leaders in all political parties to educate their base to respect differences in the other, and share space and resources equitably. It is also instructive that Mr Granger is given credit for the Amaila Falls issue, and not Mr Greenidge who was the mastermind, but when APNU falters Granger is absolved from responsibility.

None of the persons (Barrington Braithwaite, Mike Persaud, Tarron Khemraj, Mark DaCosta) making a case for Mr Granger’s re-election as PNCR leader has been able to do so on his performance. And this is because they too know that he has fallen short. Likeability or association does not equal development; performance does. Those who desire the politics of performance, and have placed Granger’s performance under critical review and found deficiencies, have made them known. No spin can hide the facts.

 

Yours faithfully, 
Minette Bacchus

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Granger is a thinker

 

Posted By Staff Writer On July 25, 2014 @ 5:04 am In Letters |

Dear Editor,

I venture to share a thought or two on Brigadier General (ret) David Granger’s opposition presence, and potential leadership of this nation.

A start is made with the negatives, as seen from my perspective. Mr Granger is, perhaps, too distant, too studious, too methodical in his approach to his current role. He strikes me, at times, as being too managerial, and too committed to a certain way that conflicts with my own thinking, and which has been beneficial to the government. Other times, there is the evaluation of a lack of raw political intuition, and an absence of an instinct for the jugular.

And yet, there is more, considerably more that recommends the man, the retired military officer, and a now central political figure of pivotal importance at a crucial time.

There is a man navigating along (struggling with) a buffeting journey on a suspended political thread. Below are waiting sharks, crocodiles, and all kinds of predators. That is, veteran predators of the political stripe. His is the challenge, indeed, the conundrum, to transform internally, viscerally, and psychically the image and inclination of his party; his is the thankless task of defusing and pacifying the more militant elements within; his is the responsibility to present a public portrait – a credible one – of a group, a party, an institution that is serious, substantive, and panoramic. Talk about fetching water in a basket to bathe duck! For every step of the way, there are critics and unbelievers, both within and without.

I must confess that many times I endeavour to capture the core essence and vision of the man, and I fail sometimes. I do know that whatever David Granger is, it is different from those who challenge him for the helm. Let this be said now: There might be more action oriented men than Mr Granger, and more radicalized aspirants than him, but they suffer from debilitating drawbacks.

None can boast the depth of his unassuming thinking; thinking that is painstaking, far reaching, even holistic. I am persuaded that the man is a thinker; a thinker in the hard-to-comprehend tradition of all deliberate speed. The second drawback that penalizes internal opponents is that they split the party first, and then they exacerbate the national racial divide in the most distinctive fashion, as well as immediately so. Any such ascendancy would be a major boon to the ruling party, census accuracy or inaccuracy notwithstanding.

There is one more thing. I have shared space with Mr Granger on three occasions; all three were in churches. On two of those three occasions the retired brigadier was accompanied by his wife. For me, that says a lot, and introduces some compelling vistas about standards, morality, and character. I stop here. I have said enough.

 

Today, I recognize the opposition leader for who and what he is. Tomorrow, there is the probability that appreciation may follow.

 

Yours faithfully, 
GHK Lall

 

FM

After 22 years in power, the bullies would not give up power easily.
With such information out in the public domain, what do the people expect from the Leader of the main Opposition? They expect firm and swift political action, but as we said before, this fight requires political spine from the opposition to stand-up and fight the PPP on all fronts. But some newcomers who suck up to the leader are not interested in putting the country first because they want to advance their own careers. These political grasshoppers have been involved in every party in Guyana before linking up with APNU because they could not achieve their goals in the other parties.  If the Leader of the majority Opposition really cares about the people, he should ignore these illusionists and  put the country first and demand the following actions from the corrupt and vindictive PPP regime:
1.      Constitutional Reform;
2.   A 10 percent increase in salaries/wages for the workers;
3.   Call Local Government Elections – NOW!
4.   Establish the Public Procurement Commission – NOW!
5.   Censure the Minister of Finance – NOW!
6.   Establish all the Service Commissions including the Police Service Commission so that those officers who are due for promotion can be promoted – NOW!
7.   Assent to all the Private Members Bills approved by the National Assembly – NOW!
8.   Revoke all Radio Licenses issued by former President Jagdeo and commence a new  process that is fair to all;
9.  Reform the Police Force and the Judiciary and make them more independent to fight crime and corruption;
10. Reduce VAT by 2 percent

 

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:

After 22 years in power, the bullies would not give up power easily.
With such information out in the public domain, what do the people expect from the Leader of the main Opposition? They expect firm and swift political action, but as we said before, this fight requires political spine from the opposition to stand-up and fight the PPP on all fronts. But some newcomers who suck up to the leader are not interested in putting the country first because they want to advance their own careers. These political grasshoppers have been involved in every party in Guyana before linking up with APNU because they could not achieve their goals in the other parties.  If the Leader of the majority Opposition really cares about the people, he should ignore these illusionists and  put the country first and demand the following actions from the corrupt and vindictive PPP regime:
1.      Constitutional Reform;
2.   A 10 percent increase in salaries/wages for the workers;
3.   Call Local Government Elections – NOW!
4.   Establish the Public Procurement Commission – NOW!
5.   Censure the Minister of Finance – NOW!
6.   Establish all the Service Commissions including the Police Service Commission so that those officers who are due for promotion can be promoted – NOW!
7.   Assent to all the Private Members Bills approved by the National Assembly – NOW!
8.   Revoke all Radio Licenses issued by former President Jagdeo and commence a new  process that is fair to all;
9.  Reform the Police Force and the Judiciary and make them more independent to fight crime and corruption;
10. Reduce VAT by 2 percent

 

Mr Horsie is that a AFC press release? 

FM

 

  • Minette, you said it with such incisive and intellectual insight all I can do is give you a double high five through the Internet. Folks have to separate Granger the likeable person from Granger the lousy politician. The same holds true for Ramotar. It is almost as if Jagdeo and Corbin never left! Performance has to finally trump personality politics in Guyana or else we will continue suffering from the Hans Christian Andersen's 'King's New Suit' syndrome.

     

     
     
  •  
     
FM
Last edited by Former Member

Mr Mike Persaud on SN bloh: 

 

Granger seeks centralised government but is the leader taking the flogging for persistently seeking local government elections, most recently highlighted by the AFC's rash no-confidence push?

Granger isn't multi-ethnic, but has been living lovingly in a multi-ethnic marriage with multi-ethnic children, and then multi-ethnic grandchildren for forty-four years? Didn't you recently transmit to your voluminous mailing list an attack on Granger's multi-ethnic relative? How about your recent e-mailed racist attack on Mike Persaud?

Granger didn't lead the charge on Amaila, Greenidge did. So you want one person to do and take credit for all of the work instead of responsibility being assigned to team members with the most relevant experience? The Minette Method of Management?

Mr Greenidge isn't challenging Granger. Mr Bond isn't challenging Granger. Mr Jones isn't challenging Granger. They actually work with Granger nearly every day. Remind us of your working exposure to Granger while insiders in the know allege that based on content and writing style a chap named Robert is obviously the real author of some of the sleazy messages sent in your name leaving you responsible for the others?

FM

None of the persons (Barrington Braithwaite, Mike Persaud, Tyrone Khemraj, Mark DaCosta) making a case for Mr Granger’s re-election as PNCR leader has been able to do so on his performance. And this is because they too know that he has fallen short. Likeability or association does not equal development; performance does.

FM
Originally Posted by JB:
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:

After 22 years in power, the bullies would not give up power easily.
With such information out in the public domain, what do the people expect from the Leader of the main Opposition? They expect firm and swift political action, but as we said before, this fight requires political spine from the opposition to stand-up and fight the PPP on all fronts. But some newcomers who suck up to the leader are not interested in putting the country first because they want to advance their own careers. These political grasshoppers have been involved in every party in Guyana before linking up with APNU because they could not achieve their goals in the other parties.  If the Leader of the majority Opposition really cares about the people, he should ignore these illusionists and  put the country first and demand the following actions from the corrupt and vindictive PPP regime:
1.      Constitutional Reform;
2.   A 10 percent increase in salaries/wages for the workers;
3.   Call Local Government Elections – NOW!
4.   Establish the Public Procurement Commission – NOW!
5.   Censure the Minister of Finance – NOW!
6.   Establish all the Service Commissions including the Police Service Commission so that those officers who are due for promotion can be promoted – NOW!
7.   Assent to all the Private Members Bills approved by the National Assembly – NOW!
8.   Revoke all Radio Licenses issued by former President Jagdeo and commence a new  process that is fair to all;
9.  Reform the Police Force and the Judiciary and make them more independent to fight crime and corruption;
10. Reduce VAT by 2 percent

 

Mr Horsie is that a AFC press release? 

Nah, Jackazz Brains (Ms JB) ak Tyrone Kemraj - that is a PNC press release in their DREAMS!

FM
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:

Granger’s performance has been found wanting

Posted By Staff Writer On July 25, 2014 @ 5:06 am In Letters | No Comments

Dear Editor,

Messrs Mark DaCosta and Tarron Khemraj’s letters (‘PNCR members can choose their leader wisely or foolishly’ and ‘Granger is the best leader to build a multi-ethnic coalition’ SN, July 22) epitomise the politics of window-dressing as against the politics of performance. The country has had too much of the former, while the latter presents the opportunity to rid this country of the deprivations that the gentlemen seek. There is no party leader in Guyana who has never been credited with the ability to attract multi-ethnic support – Mr Desmond Hoyte was even given the sobriquet Desmond Persaud.

Mr Khemraj informs us that Mr Granger is interested in constitutional reform, refashioning the role of president and prime minister and changing what he calls the “pernicious constitution.” What he fails to tell us is that Mr Granger is the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Constitutional Reform but for the past two years has done nothing to have this constitutional committee function, much less achieve reform. Likewise, Mr Granger is also credited for increasing votes in 2011. What has not been provided is the evidence to make credible the claims.

In major Amerindians location, Region 8 was won by the AFC and Region 9 retained by the PPP. The APNU recaptured Region 7 from the AFC, but made no inroads into the traditional PPP strongholds. In 2006 the PNCR1G lost a parliamentary seat to the AFC in Region 10 and recaptured it in 2011. Had Mr Khemraj looked at the numbers he would have seen the turnout of the PNCR’s base in south Georgetown was way below expectations.

Admittedly in 2006 the PNCR1G received 114,608 votes. Mr Khemraj failed to bring to his analysis some variables impacting on this election, such as, Robert Corbin’s initial position of ‘No verification, No election’; ACDA’s public appeal to African Guyanese not to vote given its concern about this group’s prospects in the extant political environment; the AFC’s decision to go to the poll impacting on the PNCR’s volte face, followed by the late Ms Sheila Holder’s public admission post-2006 that the AFC knew the electoral list was padded.

The 2011 elections was one for the opposition to lose given PPP misrule and abuse of the public purse and citizens. The political climate was made for the opposition, Granger and team. Closer analysis will note that in 2001 with a less favourable climate Hoyte won 166,090 votes. In those elections GAP/WPA won 9,519 and JFAP 2,824. If these numbers were at the minimum retained in 2011 and given the APNU partnership, it would have at least achieved 179, 433 votes. The APNU could have won the 2011 elections if it had worked to achieve what 4 parties together achieved in 2001! The PPP won the elections with 166,340 votes. APNU received 139,678 votes.

It is said Mr Granger’s “position on Linden demonstrates a dimension on his economic insights.” Given the reports of Mr Granger’s treatment of Linden, and Lindeners’ reaction to his (mis)treatment of them, what “economic insights” is Mr Khemraj talking about? Region 10 is considered a safe district for the PNCR and was recaptured in 2011 thanks to Aubrey Norton, Vanessa Kissoon, Sharma Solomon and team. But this region seems to get the brunt of Mr Granger’s resentment. Where is Granger’s economic plan for this region, and what has he done, using the opposition parliamentary majority, to make it real?

In fairness, inclusionary democracy is not a political aspiration of Mr Granger, but a component of governance required by the Guyana Constitution. Mr Granger could have helped the body politic had he practised this and meritocracy, another attribute ascribed to him. An analyst cited the WPA’s written concerns about his approach to governance (APNU and national) which exposes the inaccuracy of Mr Khemraj’s claim. Another example is the sidelining of Dr Faith Harding, a fellow presidential primary candidate, and exclusion of APNU’s hardest working MP, Mr Carl Greenidge from the PNCR Central Executive even though he has the power to co-opt members and campaigned on a platform that unity will guide his leadership of the party.

On democracy in the PNC that Mr DaCosta credits him for, Mr Granger inherited a structure in 2012. His management of this structure should be one reviewed with Congress this weekend, and there is already talk about his poor management of the party’s business, delegates and membership. The jury is still out. Have the stalwarts who left the PNCR returned or were they reached out to by Granger? Party membership under his leadership has declined. Disgruntlement among supporters and members is louder. Mr Granger ran on a platform promising a menu of measures in the party, and has only delivered on the publishing of the New Nation. In the meantime he has sold the party’s prized assets (GBTI shares and Sophia land).

On elections, in Region 8 where the AFC received the plurality of the vote, the party took the regional chairmanship and gave the APNU the vice-chairmanship. In Region 7 where the PNCR/APNU recaptured the plurality of the votes, it took both the chairmanship and vice-chairmanship. On Gecom, Hoyte had created a policy whereby the smaller parties were given a commissioner as part of the opposition’s allotment. When the opportunity came with the death of Mr Robert Williams, Mr Granger did not allow the AFC to fill the seat. The Justice For All Party (JFAP) has since quit the APNU, with Mr Jaipual Sharma saying the opposition did not give him support during his run-in with Ms Priya Manickchand.

On Mr Khemraj’s view that Mr Granger believes in the devolution of power to the people, he needs to explain APNU’s position on contesting the local government elections, which is an aspect of our governance structure that seeks to achieve the devolution of power. The PNCR under Hoyte allowed the communities to identify their leaders to run in the neighbourhood/village districts, and the party contested in the towns. Mr Granger’s approach seeks to centralise and control the people’s power in both villages and towns.

On meritocracy, in addition to being Leader of the PNCR and Opposition, and Chairman of the APNU and Committee on Constitutional Review, on the resignation of Ms Deborah Backer, Granger designated himself the Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs. Applying the principle of meritocracy, Aubrey Norton would have been the choice candidate given his expertise in the field. And even though Mr Granger holds this portfolio his policy position on Brazil, China, India and immigration remains unknown. Mr Granger wears five caps and has failed to perform adequately in any.

The examples Mr Khemraj cites as offering an insight into Granger’s economic philosophy evidently eludes critics, including the author of the claim who himself found it difficult to educate the readership. Mr Granger, to his credit, is associated with the phrase ‘A Good Life for all,’ which seems more like sloganeering than substantive economic philosophy, which is the source of critique.

Contrary to Mr Khemraj’s belief, there is no difference in the ethnic composition of protest led by Hoyte and Dr Walter Rodney. Both had similar characteristics, ie, they were urban based, predominantly African, but included other races. Therefore the fear of Hoyte-led protests and the need to replicate Rodney-led protests should pose no problem to Granger.

Mr Granger is no more multi-ethnic than any leader, present and past, with the only exception being Mr Ravi Devi’s ROAR, who made public his desire to only represent Indians and accommodated his leadership and strategy accordingly. On the matter of a party’s political base, every party knows the importance of its base. The base is a party’s bedrock. And in every base – because no base is monolithic – there are some who present embarrassing and difficult times for the leadership. This is not unique to the PNC, PPP or any political party, anywhere.

What seems to be unique is the desire of some to have the leaders (notably for the PNCR) abandon their base rather than persuade leaders in all political parties to educate their base to respect differences in the other, and share space and resources equitably. It is also instructive that Mr Granger is given credit for the Amaila Falls issue, and not Mr Greenidge who was the mastermind, but when APNU falters Granger is absolved from responsibility.

None of the persons (Barrington Braithwaite, Mike Persaud, Tarron Khemraj, Mark DaCosta) making a case for Mr Granger’s re-election as PNCR leader has been able to do so on his performance. And this is because they too know that he has fallen short. Likeability or association does not equal development; performance does. Those who desire the politics of performance, and have placed Granger’s performance under critical review and found deficiencies, have made them known. No spin can hide the facts.

 

Yours faithfully, 
Minette Bacchus

Again Tarron get the middle finger?  Where in the azz or the nose?

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×