Over the years since 2000, the United National Congress (UNC) had grown lethargic and had become a poor shadow of the democratic, people movement that Basdeo Panday launched in 1989, predicting that people would flock to his crusade not because of "the colour of their skins but because of the content of their minds". That bottom up movement propelled Panday into government in 1995 but his inability to deal effectively with dissent within his cabinet and caucus caused his fall from power within months of the UNC winning a majority in the 2000 general election.
Panday and the UNC never recovered and instead of going through a process of self-examination and rebuilding, a small group of men and women huddled together at the Rienzi complex week after week, ignoring the people and refusing to admit that it was time to wake up and get serious about winning an election.
Jack Warner, the rookie MP from Chaguanas West, dared to challenge the status quo and earned the title of neemakharam, but he was determined to effect change. And he did. He started the revolution for change that saw Panday and his loyal team wiped out in the January 24 internal election, except for Roodal Moonilal.
There were a few significant things about that election:
- For the first time Panday was facing a challenge for the post of leader of the UNC
- Panday stated that he would respect the verdict of the people and leave with "joy in my heart" if he lost
- Panday promised never to be a "yoke" on the necks of UNC members
- Panday predicted that if he lost the election the UNC would be dead in six months
- The unprecedented support for the new team that won, led by Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Warner
And public pronouncements from some pro-Panday legislators and Panday himself suggest that they are in charge of the party, not Persad-Bissessar.
The reason is clear: some MPs elected by people in 2007 have refused to accept the people's right to choose and insist on keeping Panday in office through their continued support. And today the members of the Senate represent views of a single MP, not the party.
At a time when the party should be engaged in a process of healing and planning for an election, it remains a home divided.
An energized Panday is now talking about a divided party with "them" and "us". "I’ll just let them wallow in their mess," he was quoted as telling the Trinidad Guardian, adding that Persad-Bissessar is "misleading the nation and tarnishing the names of all the MPs if she does not say specifically who is supporting her."
That should never be an issue.
Once the members of the party had made a choice through a democratic process established by the party, there should be no question about loyalty and support for the leader.
Panday is the one who has always boasted about his respect for democracy. In a statement shortly after learning of a challenge to his leadership, Panday said he was supremely proud of his achievement of introducing a UNC constitution that allowed "any person in good standing to go up for elections."
And in a speech in 2000, he urged citizens to stand up against tyranny. "Never surrender your freedom to those who have no respect for democracy and freedom," he said.
And he said more than once if the people rejected him he would leave "with joy in my heart", vowing never to be an albatross around the necks of UNC members.
So why is Panday taking comfort from a constitutional anomaly that allows him to remain the official leader of the opposition when the majority of the members of the opposition party rejected him?
Panday must stand up for democracy and respect the people's decision. A total of 1,359 UNC members voted for Panday; Persad-Bissessar won the support of 13,493. If you divide the votes among the 41 constituencies in the country only 33 people per constituency voted for Panday as leader.
Even Panday's Couva North constituency turned against him during and after the vote. One of his most loyal lieutenants, constituency chairman Orlando Nagassar had this to say:
“We found it very difficult to mobilise people for the internal elections to vote for Panday. Although we transported people to the polling stations, they went and voted for Kamla,” he said on Monday when the whole executive offered the new leader their resignations.
That statement alone should be the signal for Panday to summon his MPs and tell them that they must respect the people's verdict, support the new leader and get the party in shape to win an election.
And he should get involved in using his political experience and skills to make it happen.
Instead, he is gathering his few loyal troops to "mash up" the party that he founded as a people's movement, ignoring the very ideals for which he fought for decades only to hold to power that is not rightly his.
Panday has no moral ground upon which to stand. Today he cannot even rely on the people whose support so often sought when he was down.
Despite the optimism of some of his supporters, the people have made a clear choice. So it would seem that the only result that Panday can hope to achieve from his political tantrum is to inflict serious injury to the party since there is no way he can be leader.
And the puzzling question is why?
Why would a man like Panday, who has fought all kinds of battles on behalf of the people, deny his own party a chance to continue the struggle he started and get back into government?
Panday appears to be working hard to make his own prediction come true - that the UNC would not last six months under the leadership of Persad-Bissessar. There must be some other hidden agenda. And the members of the UNC must demand some answers, and do it now.
But I also blame the new UNC leader for letting this state of affairs to continue. She has the support of a strong chairman who has demonstrated that he has the ability to mobilize the people to stand up for what is right. Why doesn't the leader give Jack his jacket and let him fix this problem today?
If the MPs are refusing to do the democratic thing, then it is time for the people in their respective constituencies to demand that they do.
They are in office because the people put them there to do a job. And part of the responsibility of an MP is to recognize the party's legitimate leader.
The people deserve better. They voted for change. And the leadership has an obligation to the people to create the change. Anything less would be yet another betrayal of the people.
Jai Parasram | Toronto, Feb 14, 2010
1 comment:
According to Gail Alexander in the Saturday Guardian 13/02/2010: “Warner’s aides agree that if Persad-Bissessar does not become Opposition Leader by next week her political stocks, credibility and future operations could be affected.” This information is being put out in the public domain so that it will take the heat of Warner as a poor choice for Chief Whip especially after the embarrasement the party experienced last week in the parliament. A few days before that, a Mr Ramjattan spoke at the party's Chandenagore meeting and the party is yet to investigate if the Couva North surrogate office in the vicinity of the Dattatreya Yoga Center at Carapichaima is housed by the same person who cursed Mr Panday on polling day.
The political reality is that the frustration being experienced by Mr Warner has to do with the fact that the person who led the UNC into government has always held the power of the party in his persona. This power which is not written in the party's constitution is the power which Mr Panday can pass to no successor. They go only to him who can wrest it from him. And until Mr Panday is out of the seat as M.P. he retains that power. This is where it becomes frightening, even terrifying.
Professor W.J.M. Mackenzie in his seminal work: Power, Violence, Decision makes the point that politicians skate on the thin ice of the sea of violence.
If the UNC executive does not disband the Couva North surrogate office then we can expect violence to be an official policy of the executive in it's attempt to wrest power from the father of the UNC.
Post a Comment