Recent political developments in Trinidad & Tobago could lead you to conclude that as the governing coalition approaches its mid-term, “has-been” leaders are seeking a resurrection, hoping to appeal to tribal instincts and catch the present leadership napping.
First, there is the spectacle of Patrick Manning, an elected MP and former Prime Minister, leaving the Parliament in favour of his personal audiences with reporters through news conferences, to provide “solutions” to the nation’s problems. He even had the audacity to demand fresh elections.
This is the same Patrick Manning who called an election in 2010, nearly three years ahead of schedule and suffered a humiliating defeat due to the unprecedented corruption under his watch and his failure as a leader. Yet somehow he believes he has the moral authority to call the government to account.
And last week another former Prime Minister, Basdeo Panday, who also suffered a stunning defeat by Kamla Persad-Bissessar, called reporters to tell them of his plan to “take back” the United National Congress (UNC) in internal election in March 2012.
And he justified it by saying his plan is to take back the party that was “stolen” in 2010.
First, the UNC must not allow Mr. Panday to talk about a “stolen election.” He has never provided the evidence to substantiate this claim.
The red herring that he used to try to make a case after his defeat was that thousands of membership cards were hidden and not delivered to party members. Even Kelvin Ramnath, one of his supporters from the pre-UNC days and a member of the election team at Rienzi, acknowledged that was a non-issue since party ID cards were not required to vote.
For the first time in his political life someone challenged Mr. Panday for the leadership of the party and she beat him. The members of the party choose Kamla Persad-Bissessar 10 to 1 over him because they felt that she was the best person to rebuild the party, unite the opposition and then beat the PNM in a general election.
The developments of 2010 proved that the members were right on all counts.
Mr. Panday lost the leadership election in 2010 because people realized that he had lost his political currency, that he no longer had the ability to lead or win an election.
The UNC membership opted for an opportunity to get back to government and they said unequivocally that they did not want Mr. Panday because he could not deliver that.
Second, if he really feels he has a right to “take back” the UNC, Mr. Panday must come up with substantive reasons for doing so. He has failed to do that the same way he failed to provide any credible reason for his re-election as leader in January 2010.
What he IS doing is appealing to certain disgruntled UNC members who are unhappy with the coalition arrangements, hoping they might help to lead the charge and influence the youth to rally against the present leadership.
The sub-text of Mr. Panday's pronouncements is an emotional appeal to the UNC membership, telling them the current leadership has left them in the cold, having used them conveniently to achieve power.
Part of that emotional appeal will also be his claim that “outsiders” have taken control of “his” party and left its true supporters and workers empty-handed.
It all comes down to political spite and revenge.
Mr. Panday is determined to get even and push Kamla out from her position of power.
And if you believe that Mr. Panday has no desire for holding office again, you can also expect Santa Claus to deliver a present under your Christmas tree on December 24.
What is perhaps most interesting about his latest move is that he has dispensed with the old guard that deserted him when he lost the leadership of the party in 2010 to Kamla. Now he is looking for a new constituency and is targeting the youth.
“I shall be speaking to you every day from now on, giving you advice on how we shall overcome,” Panday has promised in his Facebook page.
Those who might be eager to latch on to Mr. Panday’s campaign should acquaint themselves with the reality rather than blindly follow.
Mr. Panday seems to be taking a page out of the PNM playbook to try to seize control of the UNC and find a backdoor to government, using the Nazi propaganda style of repeating lies and misinformation so often that they become fact.
The UNC needs to ask questions. The general membership and the youth, - especially the generation NEXT to whom Mr. Panday is appealing – should ask what Mr. Panday is really offering.
His motives are extremely suspicious, to say the least.
He seems to have retired the old line that those who hold office today did not stand in the rain and mud when the party was born. The reason is because those who did – people like Roodal Moonilal and Kelvin Ramnath - have moved on. Who were more loyal than them?
Others who had “worshipped” at Mr. Panday’s feet have also moved on. People like Vasant Bharath, Tim Gopeesingh, Fazal Karim, Chandresh Sharma to name a few – have seen the futility of living in the past without a vision of the future.
Today’s youth, hopefully, are educated enough to ask questions. And the fundamental question that they must ask the former UNC leader is what can he do for the UNC that the present leadership cannot.
Ask him why the UNC - a party that the people control, not the leader - rejected him in 2010. Ask him for solutions. Ask him why his “apostles” have all left. Ask him the real reason why he is trying to woo the youth.
And Generation Next – today’s youth – must ask themselves why they need the prop of a failed 78-year-old leader to fight their cause. If they really have cause to fight the current leadership, why do they lack confidence to do it themselves?
In 2010 Trinidad & Tobago demonstrated that it had grown up politically when it dispensed with both Mr. Panday and Mr. Manning and accepted a coalition of interests to take them forward into the 21 century.
Now is the time to move forward. And Patrick Manning and Basdeo Panday are not the leaders who will do that.
First, there is the spectacle of Patrick Manning, an elected MP and former Prime Minister, leaving the Parliament in favour of his personal audiences with reporters through news conferences, to provide “solutions” to the nation’s problems. He even had the audacity to demand fresh elections.
This is the same Patrick Manning who called an election in 2010, nearly three years ahead of schedule and suffered a humiliating defeat due to the unprecedented corruption under his watch and his failure as a leader. Yet somehow he believes he has the moral authority to call the government to account.
And last week another former Prime Minister, Basdeo Panday, who also suffered a stunning defeat by Kamla Persad-Bissessar, called reporters to tell them of his plan to “take back” the United National Congress (UNC) in internal election in March 2012.
And he justified it by saying his plan is to take back the party that was “stolen” in 2010.
First, the UNC must not allow Mr. Panday to talk about a “stolen election.” He has never provided the evidence to substantiate this claim.
The red herring that he used to try to make a case after his defeat was that thousands of membership cards were hidden and not delivered to party members. Even Kelvin Ramnath, one of his supporters from the pre-UNC days and a member of the election team at Rienzi, acknowledged that was a non-issue since party ID cards were not required to vote.
For the first time in his political life someone challenged Mr. Panday for the leadership of the party and she beat him. The members of the party choose Kamla Persad-Bissessar 10 to 1 over him because they felt that she was the best person to rebuild the party, unite the opposition and then beat the PNM in a general election.
The developments of 2010 proved that the members were right on all counts.
Mr. Panday lost the leadership election in 2010 because people realized that he had lost his political currency, that he no longer had the ability to lead or win an election.
The UNC membership opted for an opportunity to get back to government and they said unequivocally that they did not want Mr. Panday because he could not deliver that.
Second, if he really feels he has a right to “take back” the UNC, Mr. Panday must come up with substantive reasons for doing so. He has failed to do that the same way he failed to provide any credible reason for his re-election as leader in January 2010.
What he IS doing is appealing to certain disgruntled UNC members who are unhappy with the coalition arrangements, hoping they might help to lead the charge and influence the youth to rally against the present leadership.
The sub-text of Mr. Panday's pronouncements is an emotional appeal to the UNC membership, telling them the current leadership has left them in the cold, having used them conveniently to achieve power.
Part of that emotional appeal will also be his claim that “outsiders” have taken control of “his” party and left its true supporters and workers empty-handed.
It all comes down to political spite and revenge.
Mr. Panday is determined to get even and push Kamla out from her position of power.
And if you believe that Mr. Panday has no desire for holding office again, you can also expect Santa Claus to deliver a present under your Christmas tree on December 24.
What is perhaps most interesting about his latest move is that he has dispensed with the old guard that deserted him when he lost the leadership of the party in 2010 to Kamla. Now he is looking for a new constituency and is targeting the youth.
“I shall be speaking to you every day from now on, giving you advice on how we shall overcome,” Panday has promised in his Facebook page.
Those who might be eager to latch on to Mr. Panday’s campaign should acquaint themselves with the reality rather than blindly follow.
Mr. Panday seems to be taking a page out of the PNM playbook to try to seize control of the UNC and find a backdoor to government, using the Nazi propaganda style of repeating lies and misinformation so often that they become fact.
The UNC needs to ask questions. The general membership and the youth, - especially the generation NEXT to whom Mr. Panday is appealing – should ask what Mr. Panday is really offering.
His motives are extremely suspicious, to say the least.
He seems to have retired the old line that those who hold office today did not stand in the rain and mud when the party was born. The reason is because those who did – people like Roodal Moonilal and Kelvin Ramnath - have moved on. Who were more loyal than them?
Others who had “worshipped” at Mr. Panday’s feet have also moved on. People like Vasant Bharath, Tim Gopeesingh, Fazal Karim, Chandresh Sharma to name a few – have seen the futility of living in the past without a vision of the future.
Today’s youth, hopefully, are educated enough to ask questions. And the fundamental question that they must ask the former UNC leader is what can he do for the UNC that the present leadership cannot.
Ask him why the UNC - a party that the people control, not the leader - rejected him in 2010. Ask him for solutions. Ask him why his “apostles” have all left. Ask him the real reason why he is trying to woo the youth.
And Generation Next – today’s youth – must ask themselves why they need the prop of a failed 78-year-old leader to fight their cause. If they really have cause to fight the current leadership, why do they lack confidence to do it themselves?
In 2010 Trinidad & Tobago demonstrated that it had grown up politically when it dispensed with both Mr. Panday and Mr. Manning and accepted a coalition of interests to take them forward into the 21 century.
Now is the time to move forward. And Patrick Manning and Basdeo Panday are not the leaders who will do that.
Jai Parasram | Toronto 19 December 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment