A people betrayed

January 02, 2002
By Bukka Rennie

Do we see any correlation in the logic underlying the two major eventualities that has this time around "crystallised" our ongoing crisis in governance? Recall the developments...

Panday, in typical "one-manism" fashion, orders his Party's internal election to be put on hold until he returns from London. On his return, he instructs the membership to feel free to vote into office a party executive of their choice. He signals to the faithful that all and sundry should vote according to conscience. He claims he shall not intervene nor attempt to influence their choice in any way.

The slates line up. Each lay claim to greater love for, and loyalty to, the Maximum Leader, the most loving and considerate helmsman of them all. The Party faithful, with all good intention, vote into office an Executive and immediately all hell breaks loose.

Panday reneges on his position of impartiality and virtually scuttles his Party's unity and triggers the collapse of his own Government with the dismissal/departure of three UNC ministers, after only a mere nine months in office.

Of course, the other variables in this development involved the numerous allegations of corruption, as well as the concrete evidence of biases, inequitable treatment of citizens, attributed to the Leader himself, and crimes ranging from voter padding to fraudulent conversion of funds within statutory authorities, to fraudulent declarations, and even murder.

Such was the objective background to the governmental collapse, but the immediate trigger was the Leader's reckless betrayal of his faithful.

Question: Why didn't Panday openly declare the slate of his choice in the UNC elections?

If in fact he had done so, a Carlos John/Kamla or some such combination would most certainly have won and the UNC would still be holding Power today. If he had opted for transparency and open democratic dialogue within his own organisation, the outcome would have been far different.

But Maximum Leader that he is, such an option seems to be contrary to his very nature. Reneging on previous agreed positions seems rather to be Panday's most consistent characteristic.

The next major eventuality came after the 18-18 election result.

Panday immediately called for a "Government of national unity" which he never fleshes out, never defines and which appears to be an impossibility in context of the present two-party system employed here historically. But his personal reputation in past attempts at national unity renders such calls by him laughable. No one takes such calls seriously and the PNM did not.

Then Panday stated a political principle: "I am prepared to share power, not surrender power." Or words to that effect. No politician can be faulted for advancing such a principle. And certainly, if then he had proceeded to consult with his party membership on the way forward with this principle as the guiding light, we can be sure the membership in their collective wisdom would have come up with some plan more palatable to their self-interests than the one to which he signed in conjunction with Mr Manning, who had the good sense to consult with his party operatives.

The point is if Panday had consulted with his people, they most likely would have come up with positions that quite likely could have pushed the political situation beyond the inadequate parameters of the written Constitution, and open up a whole new vista.

The Maximum Leader of the UNC did not consult and though beating his chest that he will not "surrender power" quite summarily proceeded to do just that, surrender power, to the President when he agreed to the 10-point agenda leaving the position of Prime Minister solely and absolutely to the discretion of Mr Robinson for which the written Constitution is indeed quite appropriate.

Now once again the "powerful-stupidity" of Maximum Leadership forces Panday to renege on an agreement to which he has already put his signature. If the President had chosen Panday as Prime Minister, Manning and the PNM would still be a force with which to reckon, given the assurance of an independent Speaker, a review of the EBC before any new elections and Commissions of Inquiry into past and recent dealings of government.

How would Panday as PM have dealt with such a situation? He would do exactly as he is doing now as leader of the Opposition, he would renege on everything to which he had previously agreed and would probably even try to buy out as much people as the coffers of the State would allow, and that includes even the Speaker if he felt he had to do so. The present criticisms of the President are all "red-herrings". The Constitution does not confine Robinson to go with the incumbent, far moreso since the incumbent collapsed in office. And the only morality and spiritual values that Robinson can bring to bear on the matter are his own. The only morality and spiritual values that Robinson could utilise to assess and judge how to proceed and who to select are his own. That's precisely what "sole discretion" means. So to talk now about "race" and "war", because Robinson did not select you, shall only serve to incite and lead people into disaster. We pointed out to Panday some years ago there are countervailing arms of State power, that is, Governmental power, comprising Executive and Legislature, being only one arm which can at times be the weakest arm, and that the arms of mediation and reconciliation (civil service, judiciary, church etc.) and the arms of coercion( police, army, secret service etc) can in all "Western Democracies" come to the fore to deal with specific objective conditions such as "war".

One must conclude from all this that Panday has not only betrayed his faithful followers once, but twice, with his Maximum Leadership nonsense and his failure to consult with the faithful.

The question is, will he be allowed to do so thrice?