Mr Hoyte has spoken, and his words potentially could represent a revolutionary new direction for his party. In the first place, he has now indicated his support for what he called "an adjusted system of governance," and he has asked the PNC Congress to give careful consideration to those voices in the society calling for constitutional and political reform. "We should not be diffident, as a party," he said, "about putting forward proposals as part of any national debate on this subject."
He told the delegates that they should be prepared to question the party's methods, strategies, policies and programmes, on the understanding that there were neither any "sacred cows" in the PNC/R nor any "immutable traditions." He rejected the rhetoric and the policies of the past, telling his audience that "we will have to craft new policies, design new structures, experiment with new ideas to survive comfortably in the new local and world dispensations."
Furthermore, he talked of adaptation of the party structure to sustain educational and development work in the communities, and asked that delegates consider the establishment of a supportive or parallel organization which would mobilise resources for training, education and fostering entrepreneurship. Whether in or out of office, the party, he said, would always have the capacity to promote development.
Significantly too, Mr Hoyte told the delegates that they would have to reflect on feasible options for attracting new members and expanding the party base. It was a foolish notion, he stated, to think that the PPP/C had a permanent tenure in government, or similarly, that the PNC/R would be perpetually out of government.
In other words, the theme as set forth by Mr Hoyte for the PNC Congress, appears to be the exact opposite of that which guided the PPP Congress. The PNC, it seems, is talking change at all levels, while the PPP in contrast gives the impression of having opted for stasis. Most importantly, the PNC has now openly declared its interest in fundamental constitutional modification as a response to the peculiar challenges of our ethnic/political situation. The PPP/C, on the other hand, has so far shown itself resistent to any radical amendments to our system of governance.
If the Congress adopts the leader's proposed new line, and if it is subsequently implemented, then it can only be regarded as a progressive development not just for the PNC/R, but for the country as a whole. With the smaller parties, citizens' groups and now the main opposition party advocating a more revolutionary approach to issues of governance, there will be great pressure on the PPP/C to respond in a less conservative and unadventurous manner than has been its wont.
There can be no accusation now that the PNC/R has not declared what it wants, even if that is only in principle. Of course, what constitutional and political adjustment will mean in practice, cannot be determined as yet. As Mr Hoyte's statements quoted above made clear, the PNC/R itself will have to engage in internal debate, before it can frame proposals for the national debate. However, by his statements the leader of the PNC/R has created an impetus for change, which will hopefully provide the space for us to explore solutions to our problems. The PPP's Congress has come and gone, but that does not mean that the Central Committee of the governing party cannot begin an internal debate on 'adjustments,' with a view to constructing its own proposals for submission to the national debate.
Of course the ruling party will say, why was all of this not done during the process of constitutional reform; why come back now and say we must do it all again. It is a point not without merit. However, perhaps it is that sometimes an idea has to mature; like an exotic fruit it needs the right climatic conditions so it can ripen and become digestible. During the discussions on constitutional reform, neither of the main parties at that stage was ready for radical approaches. One of them now might seem to be ready. We wait to hear from the other one.