Questions are being raised over a resolution tabled at Monday night’s Central Committee meeting of the Progressive Labour Party that would prevent newly joined party members from becoming delegates for at least one year.
The resolution comes as the PLP prepares for its delegates conference leadership election in October, where party delegates will play a key role in deciding the party’s next leader.
The proposal has sparked concern among some seasoned PLP members, including a retired former Member of Parliament, who questioned whether the proposed restriction is actually contained within the party’s constitution.
Speaking to TNN, the retired MP argued that the fundamental issue is not about individual candidates, but about protecting the democratic process.
“It’s unfortunate that we have, in recent times, seen whenever there are elections, that people take positions that are anti-democracy.”
He said that when a party constitution calls for an election, the process should allow candidates to compete on an equal footing, regardless of whether there are two candidates or ten.
“The party structure should allow the full democracy to take place that election calls for. It’s part of the constitution.”
The former MP said no candidate should be disadvantaged by rules or procedures introduced during a leadership contest.
He also questioned the timing of the proposed restriction, pointing out that historically, PLP membership has increased whenever leadership or other elections were approaching.
According to the veteran politician, those new members have traditionally been able to participate in the party’s democratic process, including taking on roles and participating in elections.
“There’s never been a rule that said, because I just signed up my membership, I can’t be an officer in the party. I can’t participate in an election. I can’t participate in a vote.”
He questioned why the approach would now be different.
The retired MP also pointed to previous PLP leadership contests, arguing that party rules and procedures have, in the past, been interpreted or changed in ways that benefited individuals who ultimately went on to hold leadership positions.
He referenced the current leadership and previous leadership challenges as examples of situations where, in his view, the rules or procedures were altered or applied differently.
The veteran member said the issue should therefore be examined beyond the current leadership contest and viewed through the broader principle of fairness.
“Why the shift now is the question that has to be asked. Why the shift?”
He argued that new members should be viewed as bringing fresh energy and new blood into the party, rather than being prevented from participating because they joined during an election period.
For him, the central question remains whether the proposed one-year restriction is consistent with the PLP constitution and the party’s longstanding democratic practices.
“If it served others who are currently sitting in leadership roles today, it was good for the goose, come on, it’s good for the gander.”
The debate is now likely to intensify as the PLP moves closer to its October delegates conference and the contest to determine the party’s next leader.
Any content which is considered unsuitable, unlawful, or offensive, includes personal details, advertises or promotes products, services or websites, or repeats previous comments will be removed.
User comments posted on this website are solely the views and opinions of the comment writer and are not a representation of or reflection of the opinions of TNN or its staff.
TNN reserves the right to remove, edit or censor any comments.
TNN accepts no liability and will not be held accountable for the comments made by users.