Unable to see the writing on the wall

In politics, it appears that “time and timing” are of the essence. I believe that it was former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson who said that, “In politics, a week is a long time.” St Joseph MP Gerald Yetming might well have been actuated by the other political reality that, “In politics, four years is a very short time,” especially if you wish to whip an amorphous political “pick-up side” into battle readiness for an electoral contest which is due, for the latest, about four years hence.

It’s quite obvious that Yetming is not talking “out of turn” or telling tales out of school and neither does Basdeo Panday’s “political cemetery” hold any terrors for him. Yetming is probably being diplomatic in seeming to blame “the party” for not allowing the UNC leader to “to bow out gracefully” in keeping with his own expressed wish. The party chairman Wade Mark’s reported response was that, “Yetming was indisciplined” and could have used avenues within the party structures to vent his concerns. Interestingly, Mr Panday was subsequently reported as being “in agreement” with Mr Yetming and observed that everyone was entitled to express himself in his own way. What’s surprising is that someone of Yetming’s obvious intelligence should have taken so long to see that the parliamentary Opposition only succeeded in raising serious questions about its own competence and credibility and is not only shooting itself in the foot, but in other parts of the anatomy as well, by following the leader in Pied Piper fashion, even when the Pied Piper appears to have no discernible “road map” or plan — certainly no famously rational one.

We hear a lot of mumbo-jumbo about, “the party is greater than us and the leader knows best.” Now Mr Basdeo Panday is not the first so-called “maximum leader” who behaves as if he owns the party and carries it around in his back pocket. A more famous predecessor once demanded a personal loyalty and boasted that, he could say to any man, “‘Come’ and he cometh. ‘Go, and he goeth’”. It’s reached the stage, in Panday’s case, where, apparently, none of his political cohorts (minions might be the better description) is willing to tell him to his face that he’s outlived his political usefulness, but they’re spilling their guts all over the place, in the hope that he’ll get the message. When I saw Panday storming out of parliament recently, followed only by his shadow, I foolishly told myself that if Bas can’t take a hint, he can certainly see the “writing on the wall.” Now it would make no sense asking Mr Panday whether he sees the “writing on the wall.” He might simply ask you, “Which wall?” In nay case he’d remain convinced that, “mischievous reports of his imminent political death are grossly exaggerated.” One would have thought that Panday would have listened to the empty chairs at Rienzi complex on election night. But maximum leaders, in the twilight of their reign, hear only what they want to hear and see only what they want to see. Although they won’t put it that way, the more discerning ones might feel that Panday has got his horse shot from under him, so what’s the point of “Riding wid Bas.” Now you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to anticipate Panday’s reaction. He, apparently, sees himself — even politically badly wounded — as the party’s chief drawing card. It’s safe to say that he can’t be moved and is most unlikely to move himself. In any case, unlike Mandela, Panday would not be able to say, “I’m now retired, I have no power, I have no influence, I’m a has-been.” Is being “mothballed” an option for the old Bas?

The man who after he lost office continued to hold “cabinet meetings” at Rienzi complex and was comfortable being addressed as “Prime Minister” and was addressing his “ministers” as minister of this, that and the other is unlikely to hear any cries like, “Captain, the ship is sinking and the general perception is that you’re our greatest liability.” You think Panday could be persuaded to, “fold his tent like the Arab, and silently steal away.?” He seems, from his recent ravings and rantings, to have developed an almost pathological fear of or antipathy to Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, Trevor Sudama et al which could further distort his already clouded judgment. My guess is that Panday will use his manipulative skills to portray himself as the “reluctant political bride” and invite anyone who wishes to challenge him in an election for a leader, in an election which is “free and fair and free from fear,” as some disgruntled party members are suggesting. In the event that Panday surprises us and decides to bow out gracefully, he would insist in having a hand in “appointing” if not “anointing” his successor. Back-seat driving, a distinct possibility?

Predictably, John Humphrey has added his two-cent bit to the political controversy and lashed out at Gerald Yetming for “dividing the UNC.” Humphrey claimed that the problem was not the leader but the leadership. What utter nonsense! We focus too much on the leader and the UNC has been a “one man show for far too long,: said Humphrey. Humphrey probably never heard of the game: “Captain out, all man out.” Humphrey’s personal loyalty came through at the “airport inquiry” when he muttered, “I was only a simple minister, mine’s not to reason why, mine’s not to make reply, mine’s but to do and die.” What Humphrey didn’t say was the reference was to a group of soldiers on a suicide mission “marching into the valley of death,” because “someone had blundered.” Given the vicissitudes of politics the controversy-prone Panday may well turn out to be the UNC’s Achilles heel, living in hope that the blunder-prone Manning could do or say something so predictably outrageous that would give the Bas a much-needed political boost. Don’t hold your breath!