 |
By Tony Fraser |
Port of Spain, T&T, Thursday 21st April 2005: It was easily predictable that the report of the parliamentary committee into the alleged tearoom brawl would not be accepted by whichever side of the House of Representatives it went against.
In an analysis of "The decline of Parliament" on September 23, 2004, this column noted that the problems of the politics have more to do with the nature and objectives of the politicians and political parties than with constitutional reform, inclusive of systemic changes in the Parliament, as much as there is a need for making the Republican Constitution more satisfying of the needs of present day T&T.
"Constitutional reform will not engender new politics, new politics must drive the reform," stated the column as it highlighted the unprincipled behaviour of MPs and their parties going back to the era of the 1970s when calypsonian Explainer was moved to tell the country that "they kicksin' in Parliament."
"Against this background it is reasonable to expect that the decision of the Privileges Committee, whatever that decision turns out to be, will meet with partisan reactions, name-calling and indictment of the process and members of the committee," concluded the column.
It was therefore not surprising that one UNC member of the committee refused to sign the report and that it was rejected by the opposition party as a group.
That Gillian Lucky signed the report and broke ranks with the party is refreshing. It signals that there is hope that there are politicians who would want to organise political activity on a basis different from what now exists.
It would be astonishing if Lucky and Fuad Khan succeed in surviving to create this new politics. Basdeo Panday has already signalled that there is no room within the UNC for "independent" members of the party (Meighoo, my friend, you would have to conclude that what we have are totalitarian parties) and soon enough the two will be expelled and, worse, "neemakharamised"-the signal for the tribe to devour them.
The outside theoretical possibility is for Lucky and Khan to be joined by a sizeable group of their colleagues: Yetming perhaps, but he does not matter in the politics of the UNC; Dookeran, who has been signalling for some time the need for "new politics." There is always room in progressive politics for bright young men such as Moonilal, but then again he owes his all to the All-Trinidad and Panday.
Beyond those there is little possibility of any departure in the UNC from the frame of "politics having its own morality." Moreover, so long as Basdeo Panday continues to have the stranglehold on the UNC support base, there is little chance that such a palace coup could be effected.
Khan and Lucky are indeed in the political cemetery, only the flowers are to be laid at their gravesite. Maybe, having served a mandatory ten-year sentence, they could be resurrected, a la Kelvin Ramnath.
As to Mr Panday's statement about "politics having its own morality," it merely confirms his method of operating over the last 30 years of his political career. It is known, for instance, that Panday, his Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and the UNC government were central to giving shape, form and organisational life to the Caribbean Court of Justice when in office. Now out of office they have opposed the creation of the court with all kinds of spurious contentions.
That Mr Panday as leader of the opposition took up a principled position against the appointment of non-representative senators to act as prime minister and immediately installed unrepresentative political infants from the Senate when in government is yet another example of changing political morality.
The questions Mr Panday needs to answer to the national community, not his UNC base, are: When in government, what were the occasions when the morality changed? Was it during the period when large billion-dollar contracts were awarded? Did it have to do with accepting support from the NAR to get into office and then ignoring the party thereafter, including refusing to listen to NAR senators when they adopted positions in support of their representative base in Tobago? Did morality take on new meaning during the times when Maharaj/Maraj and Sudama called for an investigation into allegations of corruption within the UNC?"
There was this meeting in Gasparillo in-between elections when Panday and his Attorney General Kamla Persad-Bissessar foreswore the possibility of investigating the allegations because it would unnecessarily slander honourable members and ministers. Was it on occasions like that one and for the stated reason that political morality metamorphosed?
Increasingly Panday is demonstrating himself to be a liability to the UNC-but then again when it is considered that he constructed the party, gave it life and being and so whatever the party has become, however it has been shaped, he has been responsible for while the rest of what can be conventionally called "leadership" of the party and its support base have been quite comfortable to live with, then liability is not the word.
Similar to the Jamaica Labour Party, the UNC can only be transformed when its maximum leader is no longer on board. In his heroic vision of himself, Basdeo Panday, as he has indicated on a number of occasions, must see himself going out only when the appointed day is reached.
A resurgent UNC, with a new perspective on politics and a different kind of politician on board, is therefore some distance off into the future. Sadly that will leave the UNC constituency without serious political leadership and representation. But the challenge of defining and operationalising morality in politics beyond situational ethics, meaning what is expedient for the moment, is not only for the UNC. A number of serious allegations of corruption has been made against members and ministers of the ruling People's National Movement government.
Referring matters to the Integrity Commission is only a first step. Prime Minister Manning will have to do all that is required to satisfy public scrutiny that his party and government have gone beyond talking "morality in public affairs."
There are issues about the allocation of quarrying sites in Sangre Grande, the determination of public housing projects in constituency X or Y, the cost overruns on the hospital project in Tobago, and several other matters in which there are question marks over PNM operatives.
More is required than mere commitment to integrity in public life. You have to "walk the talk," Mr Prime Minister.