With one hundred days post the electoral wipe out the Peoples National Congress (PNC) suffered at the 2025 General elections, there remains the sentiment of giving the Party’s Leader space to exit with grace, as he holds the Party hostage.
It’s as if this historic political vehicle that was selected by the former colonial masters to receive the instruments of Independence, no less, should be the entity to be evicted, instead of the leader who lost by malpractice.
And all the performative niceness, the gratuitous goodwill, comes at the expense of jeopardizing the timely salvaging of what may still be resuscitated to some viability.
“Waiting on Congress”, as is the refrain when calls for immediate leadership change are made, saw the Party adopting a Dual-Head construct, a Co Leadership platform WITHOUT WAITING ON CONGRESS.
The sudden leadership division came with muffled/muzzled responses by many, wondering whose decision this was, if it is that of the failed leader, Aubrey Norton, and where in the Party’s Constitution is that unilateral authority granted.
The bifurcated Leadership model of a Parliamentarian- the rules/procedures guy– and Politician –the votes/message guy -which may be unconstitutional, is essentially pre-ordained to conflict, especially when there is no documented job description or evidence of complementary leadership skills.
Pirated takeover seems to be the scenario, as ‘functionally outdated’ and ‘marginally defunct’ are used to blame the Party’s Constitution and Administrative Guidelines as his enablers.
Because the Party Guidelines have proven to be flaccid in the face of a hostile takeover, Norton has chosen to squat in place and make binding Party decisions after losing ten PNC Parliamentary seats.
Why?
Like every hostile take over, the goal is disruption. To even contemplate that he can be massaged into some position of concordance is fruitless thinking. Hijackers are not moral actors…especially those who are manufacturing relevance.
For all the reasons that he swung to the top through porous administrative loopholes, the presumption must be that he is never going to find compromise in the decency presented for his off ramp.
The hijacker’s goal is never compromise. The hijacker’s goal is always self- serving.
Steering clear of Parliament is more pride than Party strategy. Being ejected as DeFacto Opposition when not elected as Leader, per every previous election cycle, is diminishing. Having that blow dealt by an entity with three months of formation and zero expertise is crushing.
It’s the recompense for the concoction that landed him where his talents were outrun by his ambition.
But it should not be the damnation of all- not when the lesson taught was that winning demands a collection of attributes that he lacks in over-abundance.
Norton is the Leader with the best losing record in the history of the PNC. That he has to be caressed to the exit affirms a couple of things, not the least of which is his willingness to hold the institution of the People’s National Congress hostage because he can.
We believe in civility, but believe it is reciprocal.
When it is extended- as in the ‘grace being extended for him to leave with dignity’ and rejected as some power play by what is tantamount to a rogue player, it should be met with a power play. Politics and pugilism are often synonymous –albeit, figuratively.
Negotiating summits for discussion, resolution and forging agreements, are sophisticated tools for upstanding principals.
It was Norton who called on Leader Desmond Hoyte to resign as Party leader when Hoyte lost 5 seats.
He has lost 100% more than Hoyte, along with the role of Primary Political Opposition, as well as the legitimacy of the Party as a viable contender. The blow to it’s history is for another discussion.
Yet, by Norton’s own admission, there is a Top Brass from which he has “heard no ill reports about his leadership”.
Without evaluating the veracity of that statement, our question is why would he not see his massive loss as testament to his leadership, if he was in politics for people and not power.
He is now holding the Party hostage because he’s a political shyster.
The top brass to which he refers –and we’re going to assume Party Stalwarts and not Party Sycophants – may be those of a softer political hue, not the brawler types but adherents to rules of conduct and organizational decorum.
This is where the problem lies.
Party hostage negotiation with its hijacker requires more than strategic patience, which is a finite tactic.
And gauging from Norton’s incongruent decisions and clumsy media appearances, which expressly devalue what’s left of PNC’s currency, it has reached the end of its rope.
The resignations of many in the PNC have started the call for his exit. His hand picked MP’s will continue to be mocked by their competitors in Parliament and their efforts will remain comparatively de minimis.
We know that theirs is a paid job which may affect choices…as in picking pay over principles.
Negotiations against a spurned leader who has hijacked his position remains a work of art…especially when impervious to diplomacy is the diagnosis.
This brings us to the Protest the PNC Parliamentarian headed for the “Cash Grant”.
That it turned out to be a poorly attended single-party event, that fell well short of the national clamor it was billed as, is unsurprising.
A protest/picket is not called. It is organized.
That’s the Political Leader’s domain, the votes/message guy, Politician/Political Scientist and is a speaking example of why dual leadership is a studied and not a haphazard decision made to infer competence and control.
The only thing worse than the unsuccessful protest is the negative impact it has had on the Party.
The savaging the PNC suffered under Norton’s leadership discounts any assertions of viable ideas coming from him.
And what it affirms is that everything that he imposes through the framework of the Party, as he refuses to step away in the interest of salvaging whatever entrails are left, is for personal pretext.
Look.
We applaud every effort expended by negotiators to save the PNC. But after 100 days, a tactic evaluation would dictate course correction.
Situations are typically countered through an analysis of the components of related circumstances to avoid incompatibility of selected remedies.
Honest and principled are no match for deceptive and despotic.
It boils down to confidence in Party Leadership which has, as its barometer, Norton’s trashing in the 2025 General Elections.
Negotiations are comprised of several stages.
In failing in effectiveness so far, Stage One has now triggered its escalating tier, a higher gear shift towards resolution.
Which brings us to the Protest the Parliamentarian led for the “Cash Grant”.
That it turned out to be a single-party event, that fell well short of the national clamor it was billed as, is unsurprising.
A protest/picket is not called. It is organized.
That’s the Political Leader’s domain, the votes/message guy, Politician/Political Scientist and is a speaking example of why dual leadership is a studied and not a haphazard decision made to fake competence and control.
The one thing worse than the failed protest is its smear on the Party, since every ding it receives under the banner of this loser reduces its viability quotient.
What a squatting politician like Aubrey Norton relies on is the social decency of those who want him gone because they want their institution back.
Decency is perceived as a weakness, more limp than soft power.
A preference for quiet negotiations over noisy dismissals, he interprets as their attempt to hide their loss to his seizing control. In the mind of a scrapper, public brawls are a show of force that overpowers decency.
We are hoping that the negotiators are aware of several tactics that must be deployed to arrest Norton’s machinations to stay relevant through hijacking the institution of the PNC.
It’s time for counter terrorism…shifting from negotiation to robust action to neutralize the the Leader’s direct assault on the existence of the Party for personal gain.
That’s the phase that has to be implemented immediately.
We do not discount diplomacy but submit that it never works with terrorists.
Fight terror with terror.
It’s time to ramp it up.