Panday explusion is a brilliant strategy of distraction

"Politics and partisanship aside, using a computer can suspend a member? We must be in the dark ages."
-Monica Pollard | Toronto

"This is far too serious to overlook. We have to move to the next level. SHUT DOWN THE BLASTED COUNTRY!"
-Richard Hosein | Tunapuna, Trinidad

"The Government's eagerness to suspend a mostly silent Panday is instructive. Why is he so feared?"
-Senator M.F.Rahman | Trinidad

So Bas is out again! But this game of political musical chairs is not necessarily as it seems. Based on the reports in the media, it’s a straight case: He was in breach of the rules set by the Speaker; he disobeyed the presiding officer of the House so he was kicked out. Simple.

And members of the Government side of the House were quick on the draw, condemning the Opposition Leader for his recalcitrance in not respecting the Speaker and the appropriate standing orders.

One suggested that it was a continuation of Panday’s “bad manners” that started when Panday shook hands with the prime minister at the opening of the 9th Parliament and promptly took out his handkerchief and “wiped his hands clean.”

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but it’s not that simple.

I hold no brief for Panday, but I agree with the NEWSDAY editorial that this was a case of “much ado about nothing.”

And the glee with which the whole issue was greeted by members of the People’s National Movement (PNM) and the subsequent fete at the prime minister’s residence certainly taints all the justification that we are hearing from voices opposed to the Couva North MP. And it sends an ugly partisan signal.

In the business of political communication, distraction is a powerful weapon. The rule is simple: when the going gets tough, create a distraction.

And what could be better than to interfere with the man who epitomizes opposition defiance?

Friday March 29, 2008 was private member’s day. The House was scheduled to debate the escalating food prices. Flour up 39 per cent, rice to soon cost 100 per cent more and ‘dahl’ (yellow split peas) also up 100 per cent. It was a splendid opportunity to engineer an event that was bound to abort the debate.

The distraction strategy goes beyond that one day. The national agenda today is so crowded with issues that negatively impact the government’s standing that Prime Minister Manning has been musing about postponing the local government election for a third time.

Just take a look at what is happening. Food prices going through the roof, crime reaching new historical highs, serious questions about accountability in the billion-dollar mega-construction projects, health and other services falling about, a $400-million private jet, the media glaring its teeth as the fourth estate.

Why not shift focus? Get the media and the people talking about something else, something about politics with lots of emotion and hype.

Barendra Sinanan, Panday and a computer did the trick. And it is working.

The issue has got people talking and recast the national agenda. And the opposition is reacting predictably. Panday and his colleagues plan to return to Parliament next Friday, each armed with an “offensive” computer.

And if Speaker Barendra Sinanan stands his ground, the issue will get cranked up with emotion and political rhetoric from both sides – a bonanza of “news” for the ever-hungry reporters and editors. And who can blame us? We report the events that reflect the national agenda, although we can – if we try – also help shape that agenda.

So what has happened so far is that people’s anger has shifted away from the national problems they face and directed at an issue that doesn’t change the price of rice.

It works well for the government and if the opposition and its supporters do as I suspect they will, it will strengthen the strategy of distraction and, with effective management the government could come out smelling like a rose.

It’s working. And the MPs on the government side are already massaging the message. Keith Rowley, Amery Browne, Ether le Gendre and House leader Colm Imbert, all pointing to disrespect for the chair being serious enough to expel a member in keeping with Parliamentary protocol.

And as the debate progresses, the national conversation will shift in that direction. It will become clear that Panday was wrong and the Speaker did what the rules stipulate. And yes he was, if you want to take a black and white view of the issue.

But it’s always necessary to also analyze the shades of gray.

The issue at hand has to do with the use of a laptop computer. Basdeo Panday has used it before in Parliament without any objection from the chair. It would seem that Sinanan wanted to make a point and he certainly did.

But we need to ask what is so wrong about any MP using a computer in Parliament. Didn’t all members of the Senate recently (March 18) agree that members would be provided with computers and access to wireless Internet services?

In our modern world with our nation boasting of heading to developed world status the Speaker’s original memo and his attitude Friday are counter-productive and downright silly.

The computer and other mobile electronic communication devices have become part of everyday use by leaders and the average person. So why is it so offensive when a Member of Parliament uses it?

The Speaker might argue that it shows disdain for the proceedings of the House and we’re already hearing the “bad manners” spin from the PNM.

But didn’t Eric Williams display the worst case of bad manners and arrogance in the House during his decades as government and PNM leader?

He made a habit of turning his back against members of the House, making a show of opening the broadsheet Trinidad Guardian and switching off his hearing aid whenever he pleased. No Speaker dared question him or censure him for his actions. Not a damn dog bark, to use Williams’ own words.

Panday was not going that far.

Could he have been scanning electronic files for data for use in the debate? Perhaps he was researching something relevant to the issue at hand in preparation for the debate? It’s no different from checking through stacks of hard copy. Perhaps Panday’s sin was to keep in tune with the 21st century.

Perhaps that’s why his parliamentary colleague Roodal Moonilal was quick to dub the House of Representatives “Jurassic Park”.

It didn’t have to be this way. This was a non-event, even less significant that the ridiculous Rowley-Sharma teacup brawl. But the Speaker over-reacted, though he was well within his jurisdiction. And Panday did what Panday does best – fight back.

We will hear all kinds of debates on the issue over the next few days and perhaps week.
Depending on what happens next, the issue could dominate the national agenda, pushing every other issue to the sidelines.

And that would be wonderful news for the Government. Patrick Manning knows what he is doing. It would be a good idea for the people of Trinidad and Tobago to start paying attention before it's too late.