Time for UNC to stop the bickering

Why do I get the feeling that I have seen this script before? Turmoil in the opposition, political allies drawing swords against one another, charges and counter charges about frivolous matters and the nation's business taking second place? And it goes back, way back with the principal character being Basdeo Panday, a man who has dominated the political landscape both in opposition and government for four decades.

At various times Panday has fought and won battles with people like Raffique Shah, Kelvin Ramnath, A.N.R. Robinson, Ramesh L. Maharaj, Winston Dookeran, Gillian Lucky, Hulsie Bhaggan and many others. And many of his "foes" have returned to embrace Panday and fight with him again and win.

The latest chapter in the political soap opera puts Panday in conflict with Jack Warner and Ramesh L. Maharaj, two of the men who worked closely with him in the 2007 general election to help the United National Congress Alliance (UNC-A) win 15 seats in Parliament when all the political pundits were writing off the party and its leaders as failures without a chance of returning to office.

Rumours have been swirling for a long time about a rift between Panday and Warner, ever since Warner went public with his concerns that his party, the United National Congress (UNC), was in danger of becoming irrelevant because of its reluctance or refusal to embrace change. He also made it clear that in his opinion the party needed to settle its internal leadership issues so that it could effectively confront the governing People's National Movement (PNM).

But the outspoken Chaguanas West MP made it clear that he has no quarrel with Panday. "Let me make it very clear. I have no strife with Mr Panday neither inside nor outside of the party. This is not a Jack Warner versus Panday issue," he explained in an interview with the Express in November last year.

However, Warner said the youth of the party have been clamouring for change in the party that they see as a "dinosaur". And as the party Deputy Leader he expressed the firm view that the UNC's future is in attracting the youth of the nation, not just with members over 50 and 60 years of age. He claimed other UNC members share that view but prefer not to speak out publicly about it for fear of offending Panday.

For anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the politics of opposition in Trinidad and Tobago those "constructive" comments were more like waving a red flag in front of a raging bull. It was bound to provoke a reaction. And it did. There is now open warfare.

Panday's initial response was guarded as he made it clear that he disagreed with Warner's contention that the party is stuck in the past and not responding to change. And in a weekend interview he said although the national executive has deferred the internal election, based on Warner's request, the party will revisit the issue and take a decision. He was clear that the party, not the leader, would decide.

But Maharaj - who helped the collapse of Panday's government in 2000 and subsequently fought Panday with his Team Unity - has upped the ante and suggested that Panday should leave so the UNC could capitalize on the present opportunity it has to win an election, although no election is constitutionally due until 2012.

In demanding internal election now, Maharaj wrote Panday saying, “It is time that the membership deals with the issue of continued leadership and eventual succession in the party. The Opposition cannot win a general election unless leadership issues are settled by the membership...You, as leader, have a duty to ensure that such elections are held and that the election process is open, transparent and fair."

Maharaj knows - or should know - that rather than deal with the issue, his approach would add fuel to the fire. In the 43 years he has been in public life, Panday has never taken kindly to threats and intimidation.

Panday reiterated his position in an interview over the weekend. "For 40 years I have been struggling to improve the quality of life of the less fortunate in our society. I have had a fair amount of success. Do they want me to give up that struggle? Why? Then there are those who say I should ride off into the sunset and give others a chance to lead..If I had to let somebody lead, then that person is not the leader; I still am. You cannot lead by the permission of someone else. You can only lead with the consent of the people. You are either a leader or you are not," he said.

His sentiments are not new. He said the same thing when Winston Dookeran walked away from the UNC leadership accusing Panday of obstructionism, saying he was now "allowed" to lead.

So what really is the problem and why is the UNC going down the same bumpy road again?

When Maharaj returned to the UNC for the 2007 election many supporters were asking why they should trust him given his past history. Maharaj's 2001 campaign against alleged UNC corruption helped propel Patrick Manning into office following the 18-18 tie in the general election that Panday called after Maharaj, Trevor Sudama and Ralph Maharaj broke away from the UNC and embraced Manning in an attempted Parliamentary coup.

But Panday said he was ready and willing to forgive and move on. And it worked. The people welcomed back Maharaj, who worked hard to restore the party to its previous strength. The UNC Alliance, with Panday and Jack Warner as co-leaders, presented a convincing campaign and had it not been for the fight by Dookeran and his Congress of the People (COP) the UNC and its allies might have formed the government.

Today the bickering is threatening to splinter the party again while ironically, both Panday and Maharaj are saying their primary goal is unity.

Well perhaps somebody needs to tell the UNC and its leaders that you can't shake hands with a clenched fist. Unity comes through genuine dialogue and negotiations without pre-conditions. The failure to understand that is why the Jews and Palestinians are killing each other at this very moment!

That's why there was no unity between the COP and UNC-A before the last election. Panday offered an olive branch but at the same time refused to change his tone on the platform insisting on calling the party the CORPSE. On the other side the COP leadership said it would never discuss unity with Panday as the leader.

Recently Panday toned down his rhetoric and again called for opposition unity but COP was adamant that with Panday as leader there will be no unity talks.

COP's position is characteristic. After all Dookeran said it was Panday who pushed him away and refused to "let him lead". But why is Maharaj fighting Panday? Does he see it as an opportunity to wrest the leadership away from Panday? Does he genuinely believe an internal election would fix the party's problems?

Two such elections only demonstrated that they present the party's dirtiest linen in public without resolving any of the real issues. Would a third election be any different? I doubt it. What it is almost guaranteed to do is increase then level of cynicism, broaden the political divide and keep the UNC in opposition. The UNC needs to look at how the Liberal Party of Canada resolved its leadership problem through dialogue and consensus.

Maharaj is denying the obvious in confronting Panday and opening old wounds. You cannot make Panday disappear from Trinidad and Tobago's politics. Maharaj knows it as does Warner and other members of the party.

The only way to effect change is to sit down and have genuine discussions about change without pre-conditions, keep the media out and lock the doors and keep them locked until there is a solution. That's what Jimmy Carter did and ended up with Israeli and Egyptian leaders shaking hands at Camp David.

Here's the reality. There is a constituency that Panday will always command. It's dwindling fast, but is still strong enough to upset any "unity" without Panday. Sure the youth are disenchanted but their parents and grandparents are still there and those folks are not going to desert the man they see as their 'leader'. When they time comes all challengers would become neemakharams, regardless of the facts and circumstances.

Perhaps it is wrong, but that's how it is.

Panday told me in 1999 there are people who would continue to support him even if they never see him, even without a campaign because he symbolizes their hope and their future. He was right then and is right today.

Anyone who lives among these people and talks with them will understand that the only matter for these people is whether Panday is batting for them. And the political records are clear.

When Maharaj and Panday pushed out Kelvin Ramnath, the people discarded Ramnath. However when Panday kicked out Maharaj and once more embraced Ramnath it was Maharaj who felt the wrath of the people. It's the same story with everyone who won on his platform but then lost when they put on different political hats - Maharaj, Trevor Sudama, Hulsie Bhaggan, Winston Dookeran, Manohar Ramsaran, Gillian Lucky - to name a few.

The point is not whether Panday is good, bad or indifferent. The constituency he commands doesn't give a hoot about economics, politics and governance; it cares about loyalty to their hero. Even after the PNM demonized Panday, they didn't discard him. Bas is the man. And no amount of propaganda and modern 21st century communication will change that. The change will come when that constituency dies, but that would take another generation.

So even if one can argue that Panday's politics is irrelevant, no one who seriously wants to win can trash Panday in order to do it. It must be with Panday's consent. He represents a substantial, chunk of the electorate who won't desert him for all the tea in China unless he himself stands down and anoints a leader.

The UNC should learn from the Jamaica Labour Party when Hugh Shearer stood down and endorsed Edward Seaga who went on to win the biggest landslide in Jamaican history in 1980.

For all his good work and charisma, Chaguanas West would not have embraced Jack Warner if he was pushing a dagger into Panday's back. That is Panday territory, where the people don't tolerate anyone who crosses swords with Panday. Bhaggan, Dookeran and Ramsaran all won landslides for the UNC and were promptly discarded.

For all his good representation and compassion for the people Warner risks feeling that same wrath of the UNC followers in a war with Panday. Those who embrace him today will call him a neemakharam tomorrow. But it doesn't have to be that way.

The unity formula that could work is for Panday, Maharaj, Warner et al to sit down as they did in 2007 and talk. They have to see the bigger national picture and deal with the reality, not with basket from "advisers" who say what they believe their leaders want to hear.

A genuine and credible national survey will tell you people are fed up of opposition bickering, that Panday has support in his traditional constituency, that young people want change, that many people sincerely believe the opposition is doomed to remain where it is unless it reinvents itself and embraces a new approach to leadership. And a large proportion will also say it is time for Panday to go.

There is no need to do the survey. The success of the COP in the last election that probably robbed the UNC-A of victory is the clearest indication that all the above are true.

The UNC knows all these things. But quick fixes and band-aid solutions like the Dookeran leadership fiasco didn't resolve problems then and won't do it today. Maharaj's head-on confrontation with Panday is wrong and will only cause divisiveness and bad blood. He's going down the same road filled with political pot holes that would cause frustration and negate all the good intentions.

It's already happening. People are talking and they are saying all the predictable things. And watch out for racist rubbish too that will catch fire and threaten to consume the party!

Both Warner and Maharaj are right in seeking change. Panday is right is protecting his constituency. He has said before and demonstrated over and over again that a party is not property that you can hand over. It takes time to build through hard work and dedication.

Whatever his faults - and he himself admits there are many - Panday must continue to be an integral part of the struggle in Trinidad and Tobago. So too are people like Maharaj and Warner. Panday doesn't necessarily have to be leader and perhaps he doesn't want to be.

He told the pre-election closing rally in Nov. 2007 he cannot and would not fight another election and asked them to give him victory and "send me off in a blaze of glory."

The opposition can still do that without discarding Panday. They can have a new leader without trying to deal Panday a body blow. Panday can continue to influence the political thinking and together they can move Manning to the other side of the House.

It can happen.

But only if those who are fighting for the people learn to embrace one another, define their cause and fight together. To do otherwise is to betray the people and ensure that, like Dr Eric Williams, Manning would die in office.