The PPP Congress
Editorial
Stabroek News
July 19, 2002
In our editions yesterday and on Monday, we reported on proposals put forward by the Section 'K' Campbellville Group of the PPP for amendments to the party's constitution. They involve the removal of any reference to Marxism/Leninism and Socialism from that constitution; the direct election of the top officers of the party in place of the indirect election which obtains at present; and greater geographical and gender balance in the composition of the Central Committee. The resolutions encompassing these proposed changes are due to be discussed at the upcoming Congress of the party which will be held at Port Mourant over the weekend.
At the present time the PPP has no party leader or chairman, and while there is a General Secretary, that person is chosen by the Central Committee of the party. The proposal is for all three posts to be contested at the Congress, and for the leader of the party to be the automatic presidential candidate. In addition, the suggestion is that the Executive Committee of the party should be democratised, and in addition to the ex officio members - party leader, chairman and general secretary - it should include those twelve who secured the highest number of votes at the Congress. As things stand at present, it is the thirty-five Central Committee members (who are directly elected by the Congress) who select the fifteen members of the Executive Committee.
Another fundamental change being put forward is to redress the dominance of Central Committee members who live in the capital and its environs, by ensuring that nine of the thirty-five seats would be reserved for Berbice members, and seven for those from Essequibo. One third of all nominees for seats would have to be women. Other amendments too are up for consideration such as the introduction of the concept of accountability where party funds are concerned, and the need to make provision for a ready flow of information from the Central Committee to the various party groups.
Both our major parties have traditionally regarded changes to their constitutions as an internal matter, but this should not be so. Party structures - particularly in the case of the PPP at this moment, since it is in office - have a direct impact on governance. These columns have commented before on the problems generated by the fact that the President is not the leader of his party. It puts him at a distinct disadvantage when negotiating with the opposition, for example, because there can be no automatic assumption that he speaks for the PPP. In fact, the public impression is - an impression, incidentally, reinforced by some statements emanating from Freedom House - that the Executive Committee rather than the President is really the decision maker not just on matters of general principle, but also on matters of detail.
The general effect of all this is not only to undermine the authority of the President in negotiations, since he is seen as a mere delegate of the party rather than a decision-maker in his own right, but also to undermine him in relation to the members of his own Cabinet, insofar as it is thought that he cannot hire and fire a minister without first obtaining the imprimatur of the Executive Committee.
The arrangement has had another consequence. Since President Jagdeo in the public perception is not his own man, the general belief too is that the Cabinet is less important as the centre of government decision-making than is the Executive Committee of the PPP. Certainly, in favour of the public perception is the fact that the government has not been noted for its capacity to respond to events in a timely fashion when it needs to, or sometimes even to arrive at decisions at all.
Furthermore, the present structure of the party has meant that there has been little change, not only in the personnel represented on its highest decision-making body, but also in the Cabinet itself. Again, the impression is conveyed to the electorate that the party, if not the government, is run by a limited circle of people. It is not a healthy arrangement for any institution to close off the vents which would allow for an infusion of fresh ideas into the inner sanctum. People who are in government for too long and who do not allow themselves to be challenged by new thinking tend to become ossified in their attitudes, and are more inclined to look backwards rather than forwards.
From a purely party point of view, of course, the PPP has placed such emphasis on its commitment to democracy in Guyana, that it has everything to lose by resisting the democratisation of its own internal electoral arrangements now. The same is also true of financial accountability.
The question of excluding the terms Marxism/Leninism and Socialism from the PPP constitution is a critical one for the future direction of the party. If the delegates decide in favour of doing this, it would be a momentous break, because historically the party has prided itself on its espousal of Marxist-Leninist ideas. While that issue is largely an internal matter, what is finally agreed will nevertheless have an indirect impact on the country. Among other things it could conceivably influence local and foreign perceptions about the party's unambiguous long-term commitment to an open economy, among other things. In addition, one rather suspects that the vast majority of those electors who vote for the PPP have no sympathy for Marxism-Leninism or socialism in any form.
Even if the Congress decides to make some major constitutional changes, these will not come into force until the next Congress.
Where the democratization issues are concerned, that will be unfortunate, because the party needs a more modern structure now; the current one is not responding to the needs of the nation.