Dear Editor,
The recent statement by the leadership of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) seeking to discredit a circulating survey on the Party’s leadership raises issues that deserve sober reflection.
The leadership argues that the survey is biased and that it was neither commissioned nor sanctioned by the Party. Yet the central concern is not merely the design of the survey but the reaction to it. The attempt to dismiss the exercise as part of a “coordinated attack” reflects a troubling tendency to equate internal questioning with disloyalty.
Political parties grow stronger when they create space for honest feedback from members and supporters. Surveys, consultations, and discussions, whether formally sanctioned or independently initiated, are common tools used across democratic organizations to gauge sentiment. Rejecting such efforts outright risks conveying the message that only controlled forms of engagement are acceptable.
More importantly, the claim that such initiatives are designed to manufacture the appearance of division ignores an uncomfortable reality; the Party is not as unified as its leadership would wish the public to believe. Over the past several years, the PNCR has witnessed a steady stream of resignations by senior figures and long-standing members. Some have quietly withdrawn from active participation, others have migrated to different political platforms, and still others have formed or joined alternative political movements. These developments cannot simply be dismissed as external attacks; they reflect deeper internal tensions that require honest examination.
Recent commentary by Peeping Tom also reminded the public of the Party’s historical trajectory, particularly the state of the PNCR in the period following the leadership of David Granger and even in the years prior to his emergence as leader. That reflection underscored that the Party has experienced cycles of internal struggle, fragmentation, and rebuilding. Such realities are not new, and acknowledging them does not weaken the organization; ignoring them does.
Invoking the legacy of Forbes Burnham should also encourage introspection. The Party that Burnham built was grounded in organization, political education, and engagement with its base. Preserving that legacy requires more than declarations of loyalty, it requires cultivating a culture where members can freely express concerns about leadership, governance, and the Party’s future direction.
If the leadership believes the survey is flawed, then the most constructive response would be to facilitate a credible, transparent, and properly designed consultation with the Party’s membership. Such an approach would demonstrate confidence rather than defensiveness.
Unity cannot be proclaimed into existence through statements. It must be built through trust, openness, and the willingness to listen, even when the questions being asked are uncomfortable.