The good news coming from the opposition in Trinidad and Tobago is that there are going to be changes in the Senate.Roodal Moonilal, one of the three deputy leaders of the United National Congress (UNC) announced last week that the new Senate "will take the country by storm”.
And UNC leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar has already announced that the party's two other deputy leaders - Suruj Ramabachan and Lyndira Oudit - will be taking their seats in the Upper House.
By the time you read this, Persad-Bissessar may have already announced more of her plans for the Senate. Would the Panday appointees remain? Would Wade Mark continue to lead? Would COP get a seat?
I have had some arguments with close friends and colleagues about this.
Their view is that offering the Congress of the People (COP) a seat among UNC opposition members in the Senate would be a bad idea because it would demonstrate a willingness to pander to the party.
My argument is that it really depends on how you rationalize a possible COP presence.
Former opposition leader Basdeo Panday set a precedent of bringing in non-UNC members. For example, he appointed Carson Charles, who was the leader of the National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR) and later fired him to put in Sharon Gopaul Mc Nicol, who was at the time an executive member of COP. The party promptly fired her and distanced itself from the new opposition Senator.
The circumstances are different today.
The question to consider is what ideology or which constituency a non-UNC Senator would represent? It must not be a case of just putting someone there.
When Panday appointed Mc Nicol, his declared motive was to create unity but doing it without effective consulation with her party and its leadership negated the concept and she soon became a representative of herself, not the party and its members.
In the case of Charles, NAR had become a party in paper only and did not truly have a constituency.
On the other hand, COP not only has a constituency, it is one that is almost as large and powerful as the UNC's.
So as a constructive opposition, the UNC can and should invite COP to name a representative to sit in the Senate among the opposition so that the 148,000 who voted for the party would have a voice in the nation's Parliament.
That would be a high level of participatory democracy in which the voices of the people would be respected while in no way suggesting that the UNC is weak or pandering to COP or moving to merge with the party.
It would also demonstrate that the UNC recognizes that there are other opposition views that need to be aired and that it acknowledges that in a democracy, it is a good idea to hear what tens of thousands of people opposed to the government want to say.
That is the context in which I would suggest that the UNC invite COP to name a representative to sit with the UNC in the Senate. But it must not be done for the sake of offering a gift to the party.
For this to work, the first step is for the UNC leadership to meet and debate this proposal. If it decides that it is a workable political move, then it should communicate this to COP and let party decide who will be its nominee.
It would be counter-productive to suggest to COP who should or should not be its representative. This is why: if you recognize the party as a relevant political institution, you cannot dictate how it makes a decision.
So whether they want their leader, an executive or a floor member would be their choice and the UNC must respect and accept that. They may even reject the idea, but it must be their move.
The formula is not necessarily one that will find favour with some UNC members who are still angry with COP for causing the vote splitting that helped Patrick Manning and the PNM win a strong majority in the 2007 general election.
But Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Jack Warner promised a new UNC, one that would work hard to unite the party and those opposed to the PNM and then win government.
This is one way to demonstrate a willingness to move in that direction. And it could be a formula that would bring the goodwill that is needed today to create the strong opposition that is needed to fight and win an election against the PNM.
Winston Dookeran, the leader of COP, has extended his arm in the spirit of unity; Persad-Bissessar made a similar pledge, as did Warner, during the UNC's internal election.
Now is the time to make it happen.
Unity does not necessarily mean creating a unitary party; each can and should continue to have its own identity and be guided by its individual philosophies.
The unity can come through finding common ground and a system of accommodation in which the majority that voted against the PNM in 2007 can do it again - except, this time, as a united force.
When that happens, the UNC would be able to say to the nation, "we delivered on our promise!"
Unity comes only when leaders see beyond today.
What will always remain true is this: none of us is a strong as all of us; none of us is as wise as all of us.
Jai Parasram | Toronto, Feb. 27, 2010
1 comment:
I agree completely. What they need is a basis of unity, based on what they agree on that still allows them to have their differences and distinctness. It is criminal that COP has no representation in the House and Senate given their tremendous support amongst the electorship. As Leader of the Opposition, Persad-Bissessar has some duty to represent THE Opposition, and though legally that is only to represent the opposition within parliament, she can take the next step to try to include the voice of dissent from COP as well. That would indeed be a bold move towards removing Mr. Patrix.
Post a Comment