Something is cracking in the foundation of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNC/R), and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Over the past few years, a steady, and in some cases dramatic, exodus of party stalwarts has occurred—not just nameless foot soldiers, but seasoned veterans. These individuals once marched on picket lines, defended the party through turbulent times, and rallied voters in its strongholds. Some have crossed the aisle. Others have walked away from politics.
The common denominator? Aubrey Norton.
It’s a question worth asking directly and honestly: What about Norton’s leadership driving away so many loyalists? And what does this say about the future of the PNC/R as a viable political force?
To understand the current discontent, one must look beyond official statements and examine the undercurrents of frustration brewing since Norton took the party’s reins. From the outset, his leadership style has been described by insiders and critics alike as confrontational, rigid, and often isolationist. He has fashioned himself as a principled figure in a political landscape he deems morally compromised—an image that may inspire some but alienates others, particularly those who spent decades building the party’s grassroots machinery.
But political leadership demands more than conviction; it demands coalition-building, strategic compromise, and the ability to galvanize supporters. Instead, Norton’s tenure has been marked by reports of internal purges, the marginalization of dissenting voices, and a top-down approach that equates disagreement with disloyalty. For career politicians who have given their lives to the party, such an atmosphere is not just uncomfortable—it’s untenable.
This situation is troubling because some former stalwarts are not leaving quietly. A few have openly aligned themselves with the governing People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C)—a move once considered unthinkable. Whether these actions are viewed as betrayal or self-preservation, they point to a profound loss of confidence in the current leadership. This is no ordinary reshuffling. This is ideological defection. And when that occurs, the problem is not just institutional—it’s personal.
Norton’s public persona does little to reverse this trend. Often combative in tone and inflexible in debate, he has shown limited interest in adapting to a rapidly shifting political landscape. Critics argue he is more inclined to fight than to lead, more comfortable in posturing than persuading. That approach may win applause in Parliament, but it fails to energize voters or unite a fractured base.
In traditional PNC/R strongholds, voter fatigue is evident. Many longtime supporters, once invigorated under past leaders, feel alienated and uninspired. There is no clear strategy for expanding the party’s appeal beyond its traditional base, and perhaps more concerning, there is little evidence that Norton is trying. Rather than broadening support, he appears focused on consolidating power within. However, a movement cannot thrive by sidelining the very people who built it.
This editorial does not dismiss Aubrey Norton’s decades of service to the party and country. Nor is it a call for blind unity. Leadership is not measured by how loudly one criticizes the government, but by how many people willingly follow, not out of fear or duty, but because they believe in the direction being set.
Suppose long-standing party members—those with institutional memory, community credibility, and political capital—are walking away. In that case, the captain must pause and reflect: What part of his course is causing them to abandon ship?
The PNC/R cannot afford to be a party where loyalty is punished, dissent is suppressed, and vision is absent. If Norton cannot bridge the widening gap between himself and those who once stood proudly beside him, the party risks losing its soul, not just the next election.
