Guest column: Proceed with caution in unity drive

Now that the elections within the UNC are over, and the victors are in place, attention has turned to the relationship with and future of the Congress of the People.

Many scenarios are being advanced, from various methods of uniting, to the folding up of COP as members return to the UNC. This cannot be an issue just between UNC and COP.

I therefore suggest to the executives of both parties, and indeed their memberships, that they move carefully for the time being. There is much at stake here, and it all goes beyond the current fortunes of the two political parties and their executives.

Since there is no national election in the immediate future, the new leadership of the UNC has a greater responsibility to its own organisation and re-stabilisation than to embrace potential partners or an influx of new or returning members at this time.

The COP has a responsibility to its membership, not to rush to embrace the still unsettled UNC, or to make their “non-UNC” membership feel that the party might fold up now that the UNC has voted in a more acceptable leadership.

Everyone would do well to wait and ensure that the new UNC Leadership can and will bring a degree of stability to their party. And this is not being demonstrated so far.

Unfortunately, the Panday faction appears intent upon continuing - even increasing - the hostilities of the election campaign. To what end, if any, this is happening, cannot be explained.

There appears to be no strategy in the ongoing attacks upon Jack Warner particularly, other than to create a scorched earth scenario for the new executive to face.

If the UNC cannot unite within itself at this time, then surely neither of its factions can unite with COP, or any other party.

The situation on the opposition bench in Parliament right now is one of open hostility among the persons seated there.

To their credit, the Kamla faction has not risen to the insults being thrown at the new party chairman, or at Kamla’s perceived leadership shortcomings. However, they appear to be unable to effectively reach out to the new dissidents and bring consensus into the hierarchy of the Party.

And this is not being stated in any blameworthy manner. We all know that Basdeo Panday has never been a person imbued with a sense of reconciliation.

I also wonder at the apparent indifference of Ramesh Maharaj to the crisis in the party. Before and during the campaign, he flitted from one side to the other, and although he was challenging Panday, he often seemed to be campaigning for him.

The current situation provides Maharaj with an opportunity to display some leadership, and use his influence to unite the two factions. If he could do this, it would enhance his own now precarious position in politics.

But he appears to be waiting, carrion-style, hoping to feed on the death of the party. Currently, the UNC is in danger of splitting in two.

A mass exodus from the COP to Kamla may see a strong Kamla faction fighting a rearguard Panday faction, weakening both factions and leaving the COP considerably weakened by a loss of membership.

An alliance with a weak Kamla faction of the UNC, mixed with some resentment about those who fled COP, could see us ending with three weak opposition parties and no hope of “unity”— that elusive virtue.

I therefore urge both the UNC and the COP to proceed with caution and ensure that any alliance which may be forged be done from a position of strength within both of the parties to the alliance.

Both of these parties were “born” out of dissent and fragmentation from other parties. Neither has any history of consensus building or basic party discipline in their cultures.

While the UNC splits have almost become legendary, we should not forget that all too often, members of the COP executive speak out publicly against the political leader’s statements.

It is therefore imperative that, while they may initiate some preliminary dialogue on unity, alliance or accommodation, this should be done without defining any power sharing deals, and without any firm commitments by either side at this stage. It would be sufficient to simply define the parameters of possible agreements at this time.

Both parties should—no, must—acknowledge their own internal insecurities to each other, for these insecurities need to be overcome before either party could reach out to form an alliance which would lead to their governing the country.

And please note that “governing the country” is a very different proposition than “defeating the PNM in an election.”

So, ladies and gentlemen, please fix your own houses while you proceed to “unity” with caution!

- Peter O'Connor
This column has been published with the permission of the author. It has been reprinted from the Sunday Newsday newspaper.