Letter: What's wrong with the People's Partnership?

The People’s Partnership has been well crafted. I place its founding date as 21st day of April 2010. It is a historically significant date for another reason four decades ago.

The founding principles stated, inter alia, “to adopt Principles and Codes of Conduct whereby the interest of our beloved country is and shall be put before party and individual self interest”. Among its declaration is “to establish mechanism for the achievement of consensus".

The Partnership has been in government for just over two months and it might be argued that there has been insufficient time to make a dispassionate assessment of its actions to determine if the above principles are being followed.

While I concur with the time constraint, I note that red flags of warning are being waved by respected commentators. Additionally, I am aware of the growing discontent within the membership of the COP and their desire to publicly react to what they perceive as abuse and disrespect by some of the top leadership of the UNC.

During discussion on allocation of seats, a process that is solely within the UNC’s domain and has nothing to do with Partnership consensus, a committee of the COP was told, in an abusive manner, that the COP brought only six seats to the Parliament and if they were not satisfied with the electoral districts allocated to them they can take their (obscene) six seats and go.

Fortunately, good sense prevailed eventually and the matter of electoral districts was resolved.

This was the latest in the episode of discontent that has surfaced over the past three months which has caused a recent response from COP leader, Winston Dookeran to pacify his membership while assuring of his commitment to build a strong, sustainable partnership.

I contend that there is really no partnership. The term “People’s Partnership” is but a name that does not relate to a functional entity but reflects a team of five separate units, hence the creeping instability fuelled by mis-steps, personal agendas and inexperience.

The partnership must be given structure and cohesiveness and must be seen to be controlled by a leadership council and not by one unit of the so-called partnership. This governance structure, endorsed by the national community, cannot be a public relations gimmick.

I have taken the responsibility to prepare a Federal Model, which must represent the political arm of the government.

We must remove the confusion about UNC government, UNC Ministers; COP Ministers and Ministers who are not sure of their roots. We must, sooner than later, reach the stage where the government is recognised as a People’s Partnership entity.

The Federal Model seeks to achieve this objective.

I have circulated a copy to the five leaders of the Partnership. I am advised that there are six but I refuse to recognise the sixth.

ALLOY LEQUAY | Port-of-Spain