Ramesh: Blind followers behind Panday, Manning

“The sad thing about the politics of Trinidad and Tobago is that both Mr Manning and Mr Panday could say anything they want, and their supporters would blindly follow,” former Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj opined  on Friday afternoon. Maharaj was questioned on whether he felt UNC leader Basdeo Panday’s statement that politics had a morality of its own would damage him (Panday) or the UNC’s chances of electoral success. Maharaj responded that there was blind allegiance to the leader in both the UNC and the PNM. And, he noted, the country would be in a lot of trouble unless people decided “that enough was enough” and stopped the practice (of  unquestioning loyalty to the leader). “Only then would there be political transformation,” he said.

It was Maharaj’s first public comment on the Gillian Lucky/Fuad Khan issue and the potential for political fallout. He stayed clear of calling Lucky’s name. Gillian Lucky, the UNC MP who clashed with leader Basdeo Panday two weeks ago at a parliamentary caucus, was part of the UNC executive when Maharaj was expelled in 2001. She was also present when Panday told the executive that Maharaj must wear sackcloth and ashes and locked him out of Rienzi Complex. It was the same day that Panday (as Prime Minister) had fired Maharaj as Attorney General. On Panday’s view of morality in politics, Maharaj stated that he (Maharaj) believed that morality, honesty and integrity were the foundation principles upon which the UNC was built.

“From the time I joined the UNC, from 1991 to the time we got into Government in 1995, at every meeting that we had, the political mantra was that we must restore morality in public affairs, that we must end corruption, and that we must distribute the resources of the country to all. That is how I understood the morality of the UNC before and after we got into government. That is what I was prepared to fight for and I was prepared to die for,” he said. Maharaj lamented that once UNC members disagreed with the party’s leadership, they faced the same wrath as external political opponents. He said that part of the revolution that was needed within the UNC was an understanding that disagreement with the leadership did not mean that someone didn’t love the party.

In fact, in many instances, it was a manifestation of a love of party and the desire to see it grow. He added that there was also a need to understand that the party did not belong to the leader. On whether Lucky would survive within the UNC or within the politics of Trinidad and Tobago, Maharaj said it all depended on what one meant by the word ‘survive’. “If people stand up for principle without fear of the consequences, they would survive. But (this was not usually so) big people in politics today believe that an electoral seat is so important that they are prepared to tolerate any indignity just to have that seat,” Maharaj said, adding that the politics of both the UNC and the PNM needed to be changed.

Recalling his election as  Deputy Political Leader of the UNC, Maharaj said at the time  the rank and file had felt very strongly about integrity in public office, accountability of the party to the membership and the question of reform within the party. He said as soon as he was kicked out of the party, Panday called the election and there was no time for people to understand what had occurred (between himself and the UNC) because they quickly became  caught up in the “emotions” of the General Election.