Commentary: COP needs to be careful it does not shoot itself

File: COP leaders in Fyzabad in April 2010

It was bound to happen.

Some members of the Congress of the People (COP) never wanted to be a part of the coalition of interests that came together and won the 2010 general election. And now, having got a weak leader in Prakash Ramadhar, they are exploiting the Coudray matter and publicly demanding concessions from the People's Partnership.

They are also objecting to legislation to make the switch from the Privy Council to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

But don't despair. The sky is not falling. The government that more than 432,000 citizens put in office is not about to fall, even if Prakash walks away from the coalition and leaves cabinet.

Let's be honest about a few things. Despite COP's arrogance and boast that IT won the 2010 election the reality is that if it had opposed the United National Congress (UNC) led by Kamla Persad-Bissessar it would likely have not won the six seats it now has.

In fact that is what Patrick Manning was counting on. When he called the election prematurely the leader of the People's National Movement (PNM) was hoping to capitalise on a fragmented opposition, expecting that they would split the anti-PNM vote and let him win again.

Kamla, Winston Dookeran and the other leaders - Errol McLeod, Ashworth Jack and Makandal Daaga - demonstrated a sense of patriotism and nationalism that Manning never expected; they came together for the good of the nation and the people embraced them.

Each unit in that coalition of interest pledged to remain true to its principles while working together to develop common policies for governing Trinidad & Tobago. And that's why the people accepted the partnership as a single political unit and voted overwhelmingly for them.

For the first time in Trinidad & Tobago there was a political organisation that represented everyone - from the poor and dispossessed to the privileged and affluent and everybody in between.

Unlike the NAR that imploded shortly after the historic 1986 general election victory, the People's Partnership represented an entirely new and different political thinking. It was not a single party, but a coalition of interests.

The partnership agreed to represent its various constituencies and engage in dialogue and consensus, a genuine part of the new politics that COP boasted about as one of its great strengths.

Now COP is a dissident group within that coalition. Its language is not in keeping with the rationale for establishing the partnership and it also contradicts the agreement of the leaders of the partnership, including COP's leader.

Here's what COP chairman Joseph Toney told reporters: "Until this matter is resolved, that is the matter of the mayorship of San Fernando, the national council instructed the national executive and the political leader that they wanted to go on record that the COP reserves the right to revisit our relationship with all the units that form the People’s Partnership (PP)."

And here is Ramadhar's contribution: "We will not accept any alternative compensation for the breach of the agreement by the UNC." He added that his party "would not be bought".

On the call for a referendum on the CCJ he said, "We would exercise our independent discretion...If we do not believe it (legislation) is in the interest of the people of T&T, for now and for the future, we will take the decision to either vote against legislation or to abstain from voting."

What emerged out of Sunday's national congress of the COP on the Coudray matter is that the party made it clear that it has no confidence in its leader and would not abide by his decision. And they made him contradict himself - again.

In addition it demonstrated that despite of its commitment to new politics and democracy it prefers to resort to political blackmail and bullying to try to get its ounce of flesh.

In the first case, let's be clear about the Coudray matter. That is a red herring that would never had been an issue if Coudray had not won a seat on the UNC's national executive. COP created the problem when it refused to nominate Coudray as its candidate in the 2010 election after she came second in the 2007 election and could have easily won San Fernando West.

COP compounded it when it refused to nominate her to be mayor of San Fernando in 2010. It was the UNC that supported her and the UNC used its majority in the corporation to guarantee that she became mayor. COP grudgingly voted for her.

So if there was an issue with COP not having its mayor in San Fernando the issue is two years old, so why raise it in 2012 only when Coudray suddenly emerged as a high profile member of the UNC?

If COP operates from a position of accountability and transparency here are some questions that it must answer for its membership and the electorate:

• Whose position is the party articulating when it makes these statements? 
• Did COP consult its membership or at least the people of the six constituencies it represents? 
• Why is the leader flip flopping on important issues? 
• Are the COP MPs going to accept this 
• Would other COP members like the planning minister and the president of the Senate going to go along with this? 

The reality is that if you analyse what COP is saying today you would see that nothing has really changed except for the rhetoric and political posturing. COP was supposed to be independent and retain its identify and its principles. That is what it says it will do from now on.

But wait. That raises other interesting questions. Is that an admission that it was dancing to the beat of another band all along and suddenly it has discovered its error? Was it not being true to itself and its principles over the past two years?

Prakash has found himself between a rock and a hard place in this political dilemma. He has shown that he is a weak leader who is unable to make a decision and stand by it. And COP has sent a message to the public that after all it is just another political party seeking to gain power for itself even if that means trampling on its partners. 

It seems that it is content to mash up the partnership if it doesn't get what it wants just like the kids who runs home with his marbles when he loses at the game.

Kamla has put Prakash in his place and made it clear that the Coudray matter is closed. And on the other matter of a referendum on the CCJ that the party raised Sunday, she has also stated emphatically that she does not agree with COP.

The next chapter in this drama is yet to be written. COP would be wise to do some self analysis and take a look in the mirror. It might believe it has the strength to fight the partnership and walk away but in the end the people will be the ones to pass a final judgement.

And as Kamla has said repeatedly, the people are the government. COP needs to always be conscious of that. The people know they have the power and they will use it when the time comes.

Jai Parasram | Toronto, 30 April 2012
(ALSO READ ROBIN MONTANO's column The Beginning of the end?)