What is wrong about this perception is that the flexibility of holding dissenting views and expressing them among partnership members is exactly what makes this coalition strong and what will likely make it endure.
Many people are making the mistake of comparing this political arrangement with the “One Love” of the National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR) that resulted in the first ever defeat of the People’s National Movement (PNM) in a general election. It isn't the same.
The fundamental difference between the two is that NAR was a SINGLE party with a SINGLE constitution and all its members were expected to accept that. Although the parties that comprised NAR were individual entities with their own political philosophies, each decided to dissolve into a single unit, giving up that independence.
Therefore while TAPIA continued to exist, the political arm became a part of NAR. It was the same with ANR Robinson’s Democratic Action Congress (DAC) and Basdeo Panday’s United Labour Front (UFL), which as the official opposition in the 1976 and 1981 parliament, had the greatest degree of legitimacy among the political groups.
Some commentators disagree with that, noting that in the 1981 general election it was the predecessor to NAR, the Organisation for National Reconstruction (ONR), that had the highest percentage and numbers of votes among the opposition parties.
ONR won 91,704 (22.2 per cent of the popular vote) but failed to win a seat primarily because of the defects in the first-past-the post system.
ONR, DAC, TAPIA and the ULF merged into one party and contested the election and won because of its combined strength and also because the Chambers PNM had collapsed under the weight of allegations of corruption, highlighted by the infamous declaration by cabinet minister Desmond Cartey: “ALL AH WE TIEF”.
The magnitude of the NAR victory was a loss for the ‘minority’ elements in the party and when differences arose between Robinson and Panday it was easy for Robinson to tell Panday he could leave if her didn’t approve of the way the government was conducting its affairs. Panday obliged and created CLUB 88 (the Caucus of Love, Unity and Brotherhood), which later became the United National Congress (UNC), both under the chairmanship of Dr Rampersad Parasram.
Robinson had enough MPs to maintain a very strong parliamentary majority but his autocratic management of the cabinet caused internal problems. This was compounded by the poor state of the economy and unpopular measures that had to be taken, which led to the uprising of 1990.
There are fundamental differences between NAR and the Partnership that many journalists, commentators and analysts have failed to acknowledge or consider in passing judgment on the state of the PP.
- NAR was a single party; the PP is a coalition of five groups representing a coalition of interests involving the full spectrum of Trinidad & Tobago society
- NAR operated with strict party rules; the PP accepts that each member of the group has its own identity and is expected to continue to develop according to its priorities while continuing to function as a single unit in matters of governance
- NAR tolerated no dissent; the PP welcomes dissent and discussion so that through constructive dialogue it could arrive at consensus on what is best for Trinidad & Tobago
It differs from the marriage of convenience between Panday and Robinson that led to the 1995 UNC administration because it determined BEFORE the election that it would be a coalition and established rules that would govern the partnership. The electorate knew that in supporting the PP it was endorsing a common set of ideas to govern the country but at the same time was accepting that each of the parties was independent.
In 1995 the NAR, the UNC and the People’s National Movement (PNM) of Patrick Manning ran their separate campaigns, attacking one another's platforms and policies. Then UNC united with NAR for the sake of forming a government, in spite of the glaring differences in their respective approach to governing.
In 1995 people voted for single political parties, yet they had to settle for a coalition due to political expediency. Had Manning and the PNM not committed to standing alone, the coalition might have been very different from the one that governed between 1995 and 2001.
In the PP case the Fyzabad Declaration made it clear that Kamla would lead the group, that each was an independent unit and that collectively they agreed on a common set of principles to govern.
That flexibility remains today but few commentators, journalists and analysts see and accept the fundamental differences. They have been so indoctrinated by the one party syndrome that they fail to see that dissent is an integral part of this coalition.
Kamla has made that clear on several occasions. “We know how to argue and we know how to agree,” is how she has explained “quarrels” in the coalition.
It is normal and expected, therefore, that each group will have its individual priorities that it would present to the parliamentary caucus, to cabinet and in meetings among the key political stakeholders.
This is why the Congress of the People (COP) stated its grievances and why the Movement for Social Justice (MSJ) has its own set of concerns that it wants Kamla and the PP to address before the end of the month.
The whole thing threatened to go off the rails when the members choose to go public to express concerns before meeting with the leadership to vent frustrations and try to find consensus.
From the time the election results were announced on May 24, 2010 it was clear that Kamla’s UNC had a clear majority. However that didn’t change her approach. She and the UNC had made a pledge to the people to unite the opposition and build a new T&T. They have vowed never to renege on that.
The PP is a work in progress that will continue to face obstacles, but Kamla remains determined to keep the partnership and the coalition together. Unlike Robinson in 1987, she has refused to flex her political muscle. Compromise and consensus remain the watchwords that she hopes would insulate the coalition.
The experiment in coalition politics has worked because of the innovation by the People’s Partnership. In a society that is as diverse as Trinidad & Tobago, it is the best political system.
For now the PP remains comfortable because its main opposition, the PNM, is stuck in the past and has refused to accept this new politics of participatory democracy. That could change. And if it does, the partnership would have to become even more vigilant because it would open other possibilities for the political groups outside of the PNM and the UNC.
Jai Parasram | Toronto, 08 May 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment