SN: Why did you accept the nomination to be considered for the position of leader?

RT: I accepted the nomination because I believed that groups and members of those groups who put my name forward felt that I was worthy of being nominated, and it was therefore important for me to recognise the belief that these groups had placed in me. Up until Congress I will have to be engaged in consultation with these groups and members as to what they wish me to do. Ultimately, I will have to take into account the effect my running will have on the party and then make a final decision.

SN: But it would appear that this will be a long shot given that Mr Hoyte is also running for the leadership position. If you concede that, then why run?

RT: Well I don't think I have conceded that I will be a long shot to win. For me what is more important is being in a race to prove that the PNC/REFORM is a democratic institution and in fact it will help to strengthen the party. If Mr Hoyte were to win he will be strengthened by the victory and in fact would answer his critics who say he should demit office.

SN: But wouldn't you by running be one of those saying that he should demit office, given his age and that there needs to be new blood leading the party?

RT: I believe that Mr Hoyte himself recognises that he will not be leader forever and earlier in the year I think he stated he did not wish to carry on beyond his next birthday. I have tremendous admiration and respect for him and always regarded him much like a father figure. We have a very close relationship even though we may not always see eye to eye. So my running is not intended to attack him or anyone, but I do believe I need to start making preparations like other candidates I have no doubt are, if he is to demit office.

SN: What qualities could you bring if you were eventually to lead the party?

RT: I have a genuine desire to address problems head on and I have an openness to new ideas which may be able to resolve the issues facing the country. I get a sense I appeal to the young and old as well as persons across the ethnic spectrum. But I think any new leader for a party of the future has to be part of a team rather than a maximum leader. So if he or she lacks certain qualities these can be made up by other members of the team.

SN: You are on record as saying the PNC should apologise for some of the excesses committed during its time in office. What exactly were you referring to and do you see that as a realistic option?

RT: Well what I was referring to was in fact a reconciliation of the major forces in the country and I dare say all the sides have something they need to own up to. And therefore if there is going to be genuine reconciliation which has to come in fact, the PNC must own up to its part, the PPP to its part and the WPA. So it is not a matter of simply saying I am sorry. It is really an acknowledgement that before and after this country's independence in 1966 there have been different personalities, parties and forces at work and we need to recognise that these clashes have not helped any of the peoples of Guyana. The PPP, for example, since 1992 has outstripped the PNC's 28 years in the level of corruption and criminality. So I expect they would have to acknowledge the damage they have done to the country.

SN: You have always emphasised the need for talking before protest. In fact you referred to the danger of letting the tail wag the dog. How would you approach the dialogue with the PPP, given the strong views of your party that the PPP is not honest in its negotiations?

RT: After every battle there has to be talks, negotiations, treaties. So dialogue or negotiation are not alien to warring factions.

SN: Is that what the PPP and PNC are - warring factions?

RT: I often describe what we are involved in as a Cold War where particularly since 1997 the two parties have been at war with each other, although not physically so. But there has been a Cold War where we watch each other closely, and at some stage discussions are inevitable. But we need to prepare for them, especially with the existing high level of distrust. And there are many methods that have been applied here and elsewhere that we may need to adopt, including that of mediation. We have had a facilitator but negotiations are no longer a fly-by-night affair, it is highly scientific with trained participants. So for me the PNC and PPP talks should involve a cadre of persons trained specifically in negotiations. Take the Palestinian and Israeli negotiators who despite the atrocities committed on both sides continue to meet and hold their positions.

There is that consistency. So both parties need to get trained personnel in place for the talks which have to come.

SN: The talks are on a hiatus. What needs to be done to get them started?

RT: On the part of the PNC we need to see some display of good faith. We entered into this process in January 1998. Last year's dialogue between the leaders was in sense a continuation. We have gotten very little or nothing from it. And so we need to see an act of good faith. And then I believe we will give consideration...

SN: What kind of act of good faith are you looking for?

RT: That some of the decisions arrived at will be implemented.

SN: Have not some of them been done? The deprived communities have had some of their issues addressed.

RT: Well, let me take the deprived communities as an example. Four areas were identified but at no time were these communities the sum total of all the communities. Those were meant to be the start and that within a few months we would have addressed their needs and then go on to deal with the others. We are still stuck in the mud with those four. Look at Buxton where primary students still use a market as a school. And so for anyone to come to me and say the decisions have been implemented, I would have to question their sanity. De Kinderen is going to get electricity but will that really improve the lives of the residents? At the end of the day the core issues remain: joblessness, homelessness... Let us take the issue of house lot distribution ongoing since 1998. We have a situation where Region 4 was an area won by the PNC but the government insists they will control land distribution in Region 4 and the complaints of discrimination continue. So these are only two of the areas which needed to be addressed from the dialogue. We need an act which says these have been done to our satisfaction, because at the end of the day we were the ones who asked for these to be done. So it is not for the government to say they have been done. We have to be satisfied. That is what we are looking for.

SN: It has been argued that your party has allowed criminal elements and radicals to dictate its policy as evidenced through violent marches and the call by Mr Bynoe for the removal of the government.

RT: Well there has been a history of political violence in this country. The record shows this political violence started decades ago. Yes there have been protests that have gotten out of hand, infiltrated by criminals bent on their own purposes, but I will never agree to a statement that says we are a criminally minded party knowing full well some of the atrocities committed by the PPP years ago. There are many things which take place up until today which many people do not know about. I personally had to rescue ROAR activists during the last elections who were being shot at and beaten in Bath settlement, a PPP stronghold. Many of these things do not see the light of day. Insofar as claims go about overthrowing the government I find that to be ridiculous. Throughout the world people put pressure on various governments to force changes in policy and if governments appear intractable or plain refuse we have known of cases of resignations of ministers and entire governments. I have just completed studies in international relations in the US and my master's thesis was on the viability of states, in particular those of the Caribbean to withstand different political pressures. So I see nothing wrong with asking for a government to step down or go. What I have a problem with is the method used to achieve that result. I do not at all believe in military coups or any forceful removal of governments. But some governments by their own actions bring about these unwanted results.

SN: You mentioned that the party was partly to blame for the July 3 storming of the Office of the President. Why do you feel your remarks did not go down well in Congress Place?

RT: I believe that the whole issue was a storm in a teacup and nothing I said was different in principle to what was said by any other executive of the party. I simply said that insofar as the party was responsible for the mobilisation of persons it should share some responsibility. Because I realise that whenever we mobilise for marches and picketing exercises there are gangs and other agents who enter these marches.

SN: You have had many peaceful marches. Why can they not all be peaceful?

RT: The party has a responsibility that every march should be so and that is why I said we must assume some of the blame. Mobilising 15-20,000 persons always has the potential for infiltration by outside agents. But my comrades Corbin, Alexander and McAllister were in no way involved in any plot to overthrow the government.

SN: You are not including Bynoe in that.

RT: I spoke of the hierarchy, the executive...

SN: But he is a member. Is it coincidence the protestors ran into the Office of the President?

RT: I was not on the scene and therefore I will not venture into giving any opinions on whether it was coincidental. What I do know is that no group of unarmed persons are going to overthrow a well-armed government. That is why I have no qualms in representing Benschop because you need to separate between what is perhaps reckless and what is treasonable activity. I am convinced that with the President out of the office, a fact well known to all, a cadre of fully armed guards, protestors with no guns, it is a ridiculous contention to say they went to overthrow anyone.

SN: What steps can be taken to lessen ethnic tensions? Many people claim these are exacerbated by talk show hosts on both sides. What can be done about that? There is a law making racially inflammatory statements a crime which was passed unanimously in parliament but has never been enforced.

RT: It is always going to be very difficult to find the panacea for racial tensions in Guyana because if we were to do so we could export it! This is going to continue therefore it is important instead to manage these tensions. We should also recognise that we have an economic problem and where the pie to be shared is shrinking the slices are getting thinner and that racial tensions can be exacerbated. Where we have the constitution framed the way it is the same problems will exist. Where we have a parliament which does not function and when it actually does function it leaves very little room for consensus or opposition participation in decision making, all of this contributes to ethnic tensions. We need to recognise the Westminster system we inherited is simply not working and while I may not pronounce on a particular brand of sharing power, I will say we need to find very quickly a form of governance that recognises the fears and aspirations of all the people. I believe the parliament itself must be the focal point of this effort and parliamentarians should be remunerated in exchange for serving a constituency and that if they fail to serve that constituency regardless of party affiliation they should be replaced.

SN: If all remains the same in terms of the parliamentary system the PNC will have to go beyond its traditional 42% support by securing more votes from Indian Guyanese if it is ever to win an election. How can this be achieved?

RT: Efforts are already underway to garner support from what is referred to as non traditional areas. The party will have to sell itself as an alternative government and that involves not one person but a team which is balanced by gender and ethnicity. So at the end of the day the ultimate leader should not be saddled with all the responsibility. There has to be a team approach and I admire the Labour Party approach in the UK - a kind of first among equals where the current Prime Minister Tony Blair was not at the time the most popular but seemed to be the most telegenic or appealing to the electorate. There were others just as qualified but at the end of the day the team made a decision which ultimately led to their victory and re-election. We really have to spread ourselves and get down to strengthening our party, but also genuinely reaching out and embracing all the people of Guyana.

SN: There may be the perception right or wrong that because you come from a privileged family, your father being a high court judge, that you are not in touch with the grass roots, with the concerns of the poor working class. What do you have to say to that?

RT: I don't feel I have to go out and prove to anyone that I am grounded. But I would like to say that those who know me know that I do spend quite a bit of time on the ground so to speak. I cannot now apologise for who I am. Yes my father may have been a high court judge and I am a lawyer but I have used my practice not only for monetary gain but I continue to do pro bono work. I work with Rotary International and with persons from every strata of society and feel I relate well to them. I am not aware there is criticism...

SN: Not criticism but that there may not be the support from the grassroots that there may be for someone else.

RT: If by virtue of my status there will not be support for me then there is a problem because every time I touch people from the grass roots they say to me they look for persons to emulate and in any culture the norm is for persons to support such role models. My upbringing may have been privileged but like anyone else I have friends, relatives who are poorer than poor. I am proud of my ethnicity: the blood of the enslaved African, the enslaver of the European; the indigenous Amerindian, since quite a bit of my blood comes out of the Pomeroon; and the indentured Chinese and a touch of East Indian.

SN: There is the impression that you are the moderate side of the PNC. How would you describe your position in the party?

RT: I think with any organisation there are many sides which make up the whole and it depends on a particular issue. I could be very rabid on some issues. For example, I have said I will stand against any dialogue with the PPP so long as they contend that we are a terrorist organisation. That was not certainly a moderate view. On others issues I have taken a moderate line but you cannot ask me to sit in dialogue with you if you regard me as a terrorist or a criminal...

SN: But bad things have been said on both sides. The PPP has been called a bunch of crooks. It's all part of the political cut and thrust...

RT: Well that one in particular I refuse to accept. [Given] my position in the party people may refer to me as a moderate, but it could be equally called unorthodox.

SN: Is this a time for moderates?

RT: I think during times of conflict they are referred to as hawks and doves. Right now I believe the hawk is moulting and good sense will have to prevail because all of us are consumed by the craziness which is going on, and as I said from my own understanding and that of many others is that the state is disintegrating towards literal anarchy. It is in our interest as well to ensure that the state continues to function. So what we have now is a bird that is moulting but the situation is very volatile and could trigger one way or another. Both sides have to be careful with their actions. SN: Is the path of dialogue the only way out?

RT: I don't necessarily agree dialogue is the beginning and end. It is necessary but a few things have to be done before it can start and for the PNC we have to see an act of good faith and then we may give fair consideration. What I hear most from the PPP is criticism and attacks but I have not heard them say the PNC should do this or that. I hear a lot of talk that we should condemn crime and we have spoken ad nauseam about that. Three years ago we called for a complete overhaul of the police force.

SN: Do you understand the frustration of so called civil society? Here are these two parties at each other's throats and unable to serve the country in a positive way.

RT: If you consider yourself a citizen first then we are all fed up with the state of affairs. And while the parties may be the focus of the present situation, [given] the conditions that prevail - the constitution, the economy - we are going to find ourselves locked in conflict not knowing sometimes how to extricate ourselves from it. We in the PNC feel frustrated and perhaps there are elements in the PPP who feel frustrated too. I applaud the initiative of the civil society and hope they can stay together long enough with a consensus they can take forward. My fear is that they themselves will begin to be polarised based on different issues and may eventually fragment. SN: But it was the two main parties who had the opportunity to change the constitution and to many observers fluffed it.

RT: I think we recognised back then that it was not enough. There was the dilemma of whether to change radically or in a gradual transition. We did agree to set up a Constitutional Reform Committee and it may well be that changes need to be ushered in more quickly.

SN: Is there a link between crime and poverty?

RT: Definitely, many studies have shown it to be so.

SN: But isn't there a responsibility we all have to obey the laws? There are many poor people who are law abiding.

RT: That may be so but to take that view is to bury one's head in the sand. That linkage between crime and poverty is sometimes strengthened by stereotypes. Take for example the stereotyping of Buxton as this warfaring village; every child born becomes a soldier at 15. I have met Buxtonians who say they have applied for credit facilities and the minute they gave their address the facility is withdrawn. They have a job but 'no, no you can't have credit because of where you live.' Only today a man came to me and said he had been stopped by the police in his hire car and after showing his licence which gave his address as Buxton he was severely beaten. But the fact there is a link does not absolve persons who are poor from behaving irresponsibly. Crime will never be eradicated but persons also need to be steered in the direction where they do not see crime as the only alternative. There is simply not enough being done to reduce poverty in Guyana. Some countries, for example Peru, has just started a huge public works programme road building. We need to find ways to create jobs, establish hinterland communities, revive some form of national service...

I saw yesterday a horrible story of a woman having her hair cut off by bandits, and you find criminals are not only taking your possessions but their objective is to humiliate you to bring you to their level. That really shocked me.

SN: Is that a political statement the bandits were making?

RT: From what I read the lady said the person said he did not like "your kind of people." It is not political. That is racist.

SN: What are your concerns for the long term future of Guyana and how do think these should be addressed?

RT: The long term has to focus on our young people who are the future. We need to recognise we are a poor nation albeit with valuable resources. We need to recognise that indeed we have a race problem and therefore solutions have to be found which while not eradicating the problem may help to manage or moderate the tensions. And we need to be brave enough to accept this problem and take drastic actions which might be very unpleasant. Naturally we must attract investment but above all our people need to feel a sense of hope. I would like to see a revival in national pride. It has been lost. This is very important. Investment means nothing if young people feel alienated from their surroundings, stop attending school or have their minds fixated on emigration.

I would like to see a strengthening of religion in Guyana. There should be more religious teaching in schools. All faiths, so that by the time a child reaches a certain age no matter their denomination they should be familiar with Hindu, Islamic and Christian beliefs. A lot of our problems come from sheer ignorance of each other and what we are about, what we believe.