The many moods of panday

A man who never really struck me as having close friends politically, judging from the number of alliances and splits over the years.

His conviction for failing to declare the assets in a London Bank Account and subsequent removal as Opposition Leader in Parliament, his recent resignation as Chairman of the UNC indicate his political career is over.

It has been a long career which in the latter years was marked by struggles within the UNC. Trying to maintain “unity” (one of the hinges of the party) has not been easy.

The judgment by Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls surprised many people. It was not in keeping with the view that some people are spared hard time based on their status and background. Immediately there was the charge from some UNC supporters of political victimsation.

A complaint we have heard many times since the UNC demitted office. There was the view from people who were not even UNC supporters that the jail time, for failing to declare the account, was too harsh because of Panday’s age. (Panday will be 73 years old on May 25).

While there is some merit in this argument, we cannot forget that apart from the appeal in the recent case, both Panday and his wife have another matter before the court related to the Piarco project.

Has anyone noticed that Panday has not been as vocal lately and he seems to have lost the fire which got everyone, even his opponents listening?

On a good day, it is undeniable that Panday also known as “Bas” and “the Silver Fox” is a charming man.

Whether this is genuine (and I believe some of it is) or Panday drawing on his theatrical experience that is left to each individual who has had an encounter with him.

What would Raffique Shah (United Labour Front), ANR Robinson (NAR), Trevor Sudama (Club 88) Hulsie Bhagan, Morgan Job, Ralph Maraj, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj (all of the UNC) honestly say about Panday, having journeyed with him intermittently over the years and then left the unity bandwagon?

Many people bought into the government of national unity when the UNC was elected in 2000. (Although Panday did take office in 1995—it was thanks to Robinson and the two Tobago seats and Manning’s determination that the PNM would not join with any other party). While Panday won the 2000 election, the hold on power didn’t last. A year later Ramesh, Sudama and Ralph Maraj left the party and the rest as they say is history. The UNC has been trying to rally back to power since then.

I wonder what it says about his leadership style that so many people have deserted, quit, been forced out? Some haven’t left the party but have shown their dissent in many different ways with Panday’s approach to politics.

It must have been a rude awakening to Gillian Lucky when her leader advised that politics had a morality of its own. Lucky was rebuked for signing a report of the Privileges Committee of the House which chastised UNC colleague Chandresh Sharma about the teacup affair.

She signed the report based on the evidence. Lucky felt her professional and personal integrity did not allow her to take another stance, but Panday believed politics should supersede her personal beliefs.

Panday was most likely telling Lucky like it is, but it made me wonder if it was easy for him to sacrifice his own integrity on the altar of TT politics.

In TT politics there is no succession planning, those in power like to enjoy the post for as long as possible and while there they try and smoke out those people who may be interested in taking the top post. Eric Williams was good at this, and had he not demitted office through death, how much longer would he have gone on?

There was much theatrics in Panday’s time. One of his favourite roles is political martyr fighting discrimination and PNM spite. Many people see arrogance as contributing to Panday’s downfall.

There are those who will argue that Panday should have admitted that he erred in not declaring the London account and throw himself at the mercy of the Court. Yet to do so would admit wrongdoing which our former PM is not prepared to do.

Prime Minister Manning was right when he said Panday brought “colour” to the politics. Panday’s political life has been fodder for news, political analysts, writers, cartoons, comedy skits, and calypsoes. This is supported by the many words, phrases and quotes he has left us with eg “Neemakeram”, “That’s insulting,” “If you have evidence take it to the police”, “parasitic oligarchy”, “pseudo racist”. Panday’s numerous calls for civil unrest have also raised brows such as the time he called for supporters to come to Port-of-Spain and block roads. Luckily, supporters knew that was part of the theatrics and did not heed the call.

The question is does anyone leave the political stage gracefully? Will circumstances, bad health, embarrassment, conviction, work like the man at side stage with the long stick with the hook pulling off players who have overstayed their time?