 |
| File: Celebrating victory - May 24, 2010 |
On Monday she returns to the negotiating table to try to find a solution to the Coudray affair that has threatened to fracture of the coalition.
Last week, the leader of the Congress of the People (COP), Prakash Ramadhar, was furious and even suggested that if the matter was not resolved to his satisfaction he would walk away.
It reminded me of Ralph Maharaj in 2001 right after the UNC had won a clear majority despite the PNM's campaign that focused on alleged UNC corruption.
Ralph painted himself in a corner when he told TV6 reporter Rosemary Sant that unless the UNC dealt with the issue of corruption to his satisfaction he would consider leaving.
Basdeo Panday, who was prime minister at the time, reacted angrily at a public meeting a few days later. "Who want to walk could walk," he said at a UNC meeting at the SWWTU hall on Wrightson Road, Port of Spain.
The rest is history. Maraj together with Ramesh L. Maharaj and Trevor Sudama left the party and tried to stage a coup by cutting a deal with then opposition leader Patrick Manning to oust Panday.
Basdeo Panday, who was prime minister at the time, reacted angrily at a public meeting a few days later. "Who want to walk could walk," he said at a UNC meeting at the SWWTU hall on Wrightson Road, Port of Spain.
The rest is history. Maraj together with Ramesh L. Maharaj and Trevor Sudama left the party and tried to stage a coup by cutting a deal with then opposition leader Patrick Manning to oust Panday.
That led to fresh elections in December 2001, the 18-18 tie and the presidential coup that saw President Robinson appoint Manning prime minister, justifying his actions on the basis of selecting a leader who would bring "morality and spirituality" to government.
Don't expect any such drama in this administration.
Don't expect any such drama in this administration.
In fact what is most likely is that Prakash and COP will have to climb down and eat humble pie.
Following Sunday's COP emergency meeting Prakash was already presenting an exit strategy when he backtracked on his threat and announced that while he stood firm on the Coudray matter he would continue to support the partnership and the government. It was a different story a few days earlier when he threatened to walk away from the coalition.
He really has little choice because he is not standing on firm ground. Having declared his hand without proper consultation and consideration of the facts, the COP leader now finds himself in a rather awkward position.
At least one high profile COP MP is distancing himself from COP's position and from the leader. Anil Roberts made it very clear in an interview with the Guardian media that he won't walk with Prakash is that is the option his leader chooses.
And he has chastised Prakash for making unreasonable and unlawful demands of the Prime Minister by telling her to fire the mayor of San Fernando.
Prakash first suggested that the Fyzabad Declaration establishing the partnership stated that COP would nominate mayors for Arima and San Fernando.
He really has little choice because he is not standing on firm ground. Having declared his hand without proper consultation and consideration of the facts, the COP leader now finds himself in a rather awkward position.
At least one high profile COP MP is distancing himself from COP's position and from the leader. Anil Roberts made it very clear in an interview with the Guardian media that he won't walk with Prakash is that is the option his leader chooses.
And he has chastised Prakash for making unreasonable and unlawful demands of the Prime Minister by telling her to fire the mayor of San Fernando.
Prakash first suggested that the Fyzabad Declaration establishing the partnership stated that COP would nominate mayors for Arima and San Fernando.
When it turned out that the declaration only dealt with the general election and outlined broad principles of agreement, Prakash then remembered that it was a "gentleman's agreement" that provided a guarantee to COP that it would have a mayor in both jurisdictions.
What is clear is that the ground is shifting from beneath the feet of the COP leader. While he has the support of his executive and many of COP's members the critical facts and logic in his arguments don't stand up.
It is absolutely clear from all the evidence in the public domain that COP did not support Marlene Coudray to be mayor of San Fernando. It was the UNC that nominated her although COP supported her in the election in the council. COP wanted another candidate who was unacceptable to the UNC.
So since August 2010 the UNC had control and COP knew that Marlene was not a COP mayor. For COP to wait two years before raising the matter as an issue of concern is dishonest, to say the least.
The only reason why COP is so angry is because Marlene's defection and subsequent election to a post of Deputy Leader in the UNC has embarrassed the party. COP's arrogance is what caused it to react in the manner it did.
Its argument therefore that the UNC reneged on a "gentleman's agreement" should have been raised in 2010 because if it is a valid argument today it was even more valid in 2010.
Kamla is right to stand firm. Marlene's tenure as mayor is not her business. The council must decide if it wants to keep Marlene as mayor or not and Prakash knows that. So when he meets with the rest of the PP leaders on Monday he should be prepared to accept that he is out of line.
Whatever happens, Prakash has already put himself and COP between a rock and a hard place. No matter how it ends, COP will be fractured.
As for the partnership, it will endure and the government will remain standing. That's what makes this experiment in coalition politics so interesting.
What is clear is that the ground is shifting from beneath the feet of the COP leader. While he has the support of his executive and many of COP's members the critical facts and logic in his arguments don't stand up.
It is absolutely clear from all the evidence in the public domain that COP did not support Marlene Coudray to be mayor of San Fernando. It was the UNC that nominated her although COP supported her in the election in the council. COP wanted another candidate who was unacceptable to the UNC.
So since August 2010 the UNC had control and COP knew that Marlene was not a COP mayor. For COP to wait two years before raising the matter as an issue of concern is dishonest, to say the least.
The only reason why COP is so angry is because Marlene's defection and subsequent election to a post of Deputy Leader in the UNC has embarrassed the party. COP's arrogance is what caused it to react in the manner it did.
Its argument therefore that the UNC reneged on a "gentleman's agreement" should have been raised in 2010 because if it is a valid argument today it was even more valid in 2010.
Kamla is right to stand firm. Marlene's tenure as mayor is not her business. The council must decide if it wants to keep Marlene as mayor or not and Prakash knows that. So when he meets with the rest of the PP leaders on Monday he should be prepared to accept that he is out of line.
Whatever happens, Prakash has already put himself and COP between a rock and a hard place. No matter how it ends, COP will be fractured.
As for the partnership, it will endure and the government will remain standing. That's what makes this experiment in coalition politics so interesting.
Kamla made sure she embraced everyone as they were, unlike the NAR coalition that dissolved the political parties and formed a single party that imploded because there was no room for dissent, discussion and compromise.
Trinidad and Tobago, as Basdeo Panday once noted, is too small for partisan politics. Kamla understands that better than all the political leaders in Trinidad & Tobago today.
Trinidad and Tobago, as Basdeo Panday once noted, is too small for partisan politics. Kamla understands that better than all the political leaders in Trinidad & Tobago today.
She sincerely believes that Trinidad & Tobago's diversity must be represented in its government because that is the only way that a government can understand the needs of the people and respond appropriately.
COP, the MSJ and the other coalition members are only individual parts of the whole. By all means they must represent and fight for their respective constituencies but in the final analysis they must recognise that they collectively represent ALL the people and that is why the people put them in office.
COP, the MSJ and the other coalition members are only individual parts of the whole. By all means they must represent and fight for their respective constituencies but in the final analysis they must recognise that they collectively represent ALL the people and that is why the people put them in office.
Jai Parasram | Toronto - 02 April, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment