GUYANA | Lurlene Nestor Concerned over Continued Sustainability of PNCR Party Structure

Dear Madam General Secretary,

Article 6 (2) (b) of the party’s constitution (Rights of members)  states that: “Every member must have a right at any forum, to explanations of decisions of that forum or any other forum supervised by it.”

Madam GS, it is in keeping with my right to explanations that I, once again, write to request information regarding issues I consider pertinent to the party and, more specifically, to your office.

The first issue I intend to raise is group formation and a group’s ability to have delegates at the Congress. It is known that I am a staunch advocate for group formation and outreach activities.

Most of my time in the leadership in the party and the Guyana Youth and Student Movement (GYSM) was invested in widening the PNCR’s tent. As National Secretary and National Chair of the GYSM, [the youth arm of the party] I made group formation one of the centerpieces of my leadership.

I believe that membership (people) is crucial to the party’s function, in and out of government. The record shows that as national secretary and national chairperson of the GYSM, the organization could field almost the same number of delegates, or more, to party congresses.

It was because of the efforts of the GYSM leadership and its commitment to group formation that we were able to accomplish these things.

Not so long ago, in July of 2015, when everyone was caught up and distracted by the excitement over the fact that the APNU had regained government, I traveled to Guyana and formed three party groups in Georgetown on August 6th, 7th, and 8th.

I intended to do this to mark the death anniversary of the Founder Leader of the PNCR, LFSB. The leadership of the Georgetown District was invited and was present to supervise the elections of all three groups in keeping with Article 10 paragraph 8 of the constitution.

Today, two of these groups remain highly functional, while the other had a depletion of leadership due to migration.

I give this background, Madam G.S., to reinforce and establish that I believe groups are key to the party’s function and should and can be formed at any time, whether a congress is approaching or not.

However, I do not agree with those in leadership positions venturing out to violate the party’s constitution to form groups merely to have people attend Congress to vote for a candidate they support.

This, Madam G.S., goes contrary to everything the PNCR is about. Article 6 of the party’s constitution outlines the rights and obligations of party members. Para. (1) (b) specifically states that members are obligated to “attend Group meetings regularly and punctually, and other Party meetings and manifestations at which his/her presence is required.”

It would follow that the group members purported to have been formed in the month of Congress cannot reasonably fulfill those obligations. There can be no “regular meeting” (three consecutive) they could attend by the congress date set.

The constitution, under the heading “Group Meetings” paragraph 2, prescribes that “Meetings of the Group shall be held at least once every month.” The framers of the Constitution contemplated the challenges that could be had if groups were required to meet weekly.

Regarding “manifestations” referenced in the constitution, this can mean public political actions such as street protests and picketing activities.

It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that since there has been a pronouncement that street protest (a major form of “manifestation”) is a thing of the past, I do not see any new member attending such (regular) manifestations of any other before Congress.

The Constitution in Rule 4. entitled Pledge of Membership requests that “Every party member take a pledge of fidelity to the party….” A pledge that is rooted in the manifestations referenced above.

It is unclear how a person with less than a month’s membership can demonstrate that pledge to the party, so much so that he or she is allowed to participate in the party’s congress by casting a vote that would decide the party's future!

Must someone undertake such a serious and important role without the time to demonstrate fidelity to the party? What would this say about the party? Have we now regarded Congress as inconsequential, and can we simply have people not yet vested in the institution make crucial decisions?

My previous correspondences to you would have already summed up my position regarding this one-month planned congress, but more importantly, what would these people, who we want to be members, think about the PNCR? What respectable political organization behaves in this way? This is a self-defeating, self-destructive effort I’ve seen the effects of before.      

Additionally, are we blinded to the potential negative implications for the party if we decide to adopt this “ends justified means” approach to attendance at Congress, the most significant and consequential decision-making event in the life of the party?

Must we submit ourselves to narrow subjective thinking to achieve short-term objectives at the expense of the party’s image and stature?         

Madam G.S., please allow me to speak about the specific issue I am referencing. I am informed that residents of Timehri were called to attend what was described as a “Congress Meeting” at the Scout’s Den at Timehri Docks, EBD, last Sunday, June 1, 2024.

Many of those invited were unsure about this “congress meeting” as they were not PNCR members but possibly supporters. Some were hearing about the PNCR Congress for the first time; however, it is alleged that they were instructed to form a group, select group leaders, and prepare to attend the congress at the end of the month.

According to reports, they were encouraged to go there to vote for a specific candidate. Leaders were selected from amongst those present but supposedly, in the absence of the designated PNCR’s East Bank regional leadership or its representative, which would constitute a violation of Article 10 Rule 8 of the constitution, which states as follows; “Group elections shall be supervised by an officer of the committee having supervisory jurisdiction.”       

Madam G.S, in light of this allegation, I ask the following questions;

Will you, Madam G.S., investigate this allegation to ascertain whether or not what is alleged is true?

Was a recent group out of the Timehri area registered with the party? If so, are there delegates to be accorded, and on what basis?

Was the group formed under the requisite rules specified in the party’s constitution?

Has the General Secretary, CEC, or General Council abandoned the long-held precedent that requires a party group to function for at least one year before being accorded delegates to Congress?

Are regional bodies abandoned or not functioning, or are some being overridden by your office?

And what about observers to Congress, Madam G.S.?

Is it true that the party has decided to shut out its members from observing the proceedings of the congress over its duration? If so, why?

Are we abandoning that privilege party members look forward to? Rule 15(3), which addresses observers at Congress, permits you to accredit observers to the Congress. That rule states that; “The General Secretary may accredit as observers at Congress any number of persons (whether members or not) he/she may consider expedient.”

Madam G.S., to broaden the tent and fulfill that mission of galvanizing people's support for the party, we may want to reconsider any decision that seeks to bar members from participating as observers to Congress.

We may also want to consider the issue with the Timehri group, to have it reconstituted as per the constitution, and extend an invitation to them to attend as observers, a privilege that must be extended to all groups.

Madam, G.S, The PNCR must emerge from this congress in a positive light if it is to be taken seriously in the next elections.

Accordingly, I will continue to stress that the elections must be conducted in a manner that appears to be fair and transparent. The image of the party is paramount to any one person running for leadership.

I find it difficult to accept that any one-month preparation for a major event like this is sufficient. I have heard from several comrades working overtime to meet rigid deadlines to comply with the dates forced upon them.

This is unconscionable, unfair, uncaring, and wholly unacceptable. Members have been paying for membership for years without seeing a membership card; imagine the work that must be done to produce those cards now for a congress to be held in three weeks with a membership database whose integrity is in question.        

Madam G.S., I don’t expect to hear from you, as you seem to have adopted an unresponsive posture, or you might be too busy. However, I will continue to write as I see fit because I believe the party can only move forward when those with an objective mind speak what they think needs to be addressed.

I remain disappointed in some I believe know better but choose to be selfish in a moment that requires all of us to act to protect the party’s image. We must also understand that what we project forms the reality of what others think we are. Individual leaders may leave the stage at one time or another, but the institution of the PNCR must endure for future generations.

Our onlookers are local and foreign, in and out of Guyana; it is, therefore, important that we project a responsible, caring, and respectable attitude to our members and others.

Democracy is more than having elections; it is also about the credibility and integrity of those elections, a point we must tell ourselves as we tell the PPP and GECOM, who we must demand a sanitized voter list.

The image of the PNCR is at stake!

Regards,

Lurline Nestor