A One-Party State Looms

It is the purpose of Government to see that only the legitimate interests of the few are protected but that the welfare and rights of the many are conserved.
— Franklyn D Roosevelt

Both the PNM and the UNC have lost their way. They have forgotten their founding principles. They have turned aside from their highest understandings. They are leading our peoples into the darkness that the corrupt use of power brings.  It was Lord Atkin who said: “Power corrupts, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.” Our politics continue to prove how true this is.

In continuing our review of “what is so” in the affairs of the nation, we now turn to Parliament, the Prime Minister and Political Parties.
—Parliament and the Prime Minister
We have a Parliamentary System of Government which provides for political parties and elections every five years. The Party which wins the most seats forms the Government with the Leader of that party becoming the Prime Minister while the party (or parties) which loses forms the Opposition with the person commanding a majority in the Opposition becoming the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister has the absolute power to select the members of Cabinet (the Executive Arm of Government) and the power to “fire” them as well. Cabinet works on the principle of “Collective Responsibility” with the Prime Minister being “primus inter pares” (the first among equals). The system is based on the underlying assumption that Parliament exists for the good government of the country and that the Prime Minister will exercise the vast power that he has with a sense of honesty and responsibility; and that members of Parliament, even though as a general rule they are supposed to “toe the party line,” will put the country first and exercise a free vote when they cannot in good conscience support the Prime Minister or the “party line.” In short, the system requires the quality of integrity in parliamentarians if it is to work; and this applies to both the Government and the Opposition.

When the Independence Constitution was being drafted, a young lawyer pointed out in a weekly newspaper that we were making the serious mistake of giving to the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago all the powers of the British Prime Minister without the checks and balances that applied in the United Kingdom — an informed public opinion, independent professional organisations and independent constitutional commissions. The PNM was “riding high” at the time, its intellectuals were carried away by the euphoria of the occasion and no one paid any attention to the warnings of a young lawyer. Lord Atkin’s truism was completely ignored. The years which followed showed all too clearly the terrible mistake we made. One Prime Minister after another was seduced by and abused the power which the Constitution gave him. Cabinet Ministers put their jobs before principle and became puppets in the hands of the Prime Minister. Non-ministers and government senators took every opportunity to genuflect to “the great one,” waiting cap in hand for favours. Except for the few who dared to disagree with the Prime Minister and were banished, all the others chose to take the position that they were “unworthy to untie the latchet of his shoes,” As was to be expected, the whole system was soon subverted. Our cabinet system of “Collective Responsibility” became a prime ministerial dictatorship. Our Parliament which was supposed to debate the issues of the day in a rational manner in the interest of all the people became a farce and like the doctrine of “Cabinet Responsibility,” fell prey also to prime ministerial dictatorship. The Prime Minister was king and Trinidad and Tobago was his kingdom.

The whole system has clearly failed ... not because the system itself was bad but because those we elected from time to time lacked the capacity to manage a system which required a certain measure of integrity and responsibility. Our leaders have forgotten that “Great Power brings Great Responsibility” and have shown all too clearly that they cannot be trusted with power concentrated in the hands of one man or a very few. We have been stifled by “doctor politics” and “prime ministerial dictatorship”. People have lost faith in the system and a very wide cross-section now accept that change is urgently necessary, that we require a system which distributes political power among the many. The Prime Minister has duty to see that “the rights of the many” to the fair and proper use of power “are conserved.” He has, perhaps understandably, been “pussy-footing” around the idea under growing public pressure and making vague and unconvincing statements. We would respectfully suggest to him that if he wants to position his party for the New Politics of the 21st Century, he should “come clean” and immediately set the wheels in motion for the constitutional changes which the country’s calling for. All of life is a process ... and that means change. Nothing stays the same. Nothing remains static. But which way a thing changes depends on us. The wise leader will accept this and recognise that Parliamentary Democracy is an evolving phenomenon and will move with the strongly rising tide being generated by an awakening people.

— Political Parties
A two-party system is now and for the foreseeable future, “what is so” in Trinidad and Tobago and we have to work with that. A third party at this time, as welcome as that may sound to many, stands little chance of winning an election as the PNM is still strongly entrenched in its core areas and the UNC, although in the process of disintegrating, still commands a sizeable following in its core constituencies. A one-party state or a state where one party completely dominates the political landscape, is a disaster in any Parliamentary Democracy ... This has been the lesson learnt time and again in many countries, like Guyana next door to Zimbabwe, and this is why everything must be done to see that the UNC does not completely disintegrate. What is needed is not only clear thinking and independence on the part of UNC Parliamentarians and its supporters but also the courage to put the party and the country first. Mr Basdeo Panday has shown a painful lack of leadership qualities while the UNC was in power. He allowed a state of corruption to emerge and flourish. He deserted the thousands and thousands of his faithful followers and all too eagerly and quickly joined the ranks of the “parasitic oligarchy” he had so vehemently condemned. He failed to deal with the “Caroni” issue leaving it to the PNM to scatter his faithful supporters with one swift surgical stroke; and in their moment of anguish, neither he nor his colleagues was there to comfort them. He refused to accept the results of the internal elections of his party and then banished Mr Ramesh Maharaj and Mr Trevor Sudama, his two faithful colleagues, from his Government and the party because they dared to take a principled stand on corruption. And when there was the tie in the 2001 General Elections, he gave the President the opportunity to appoint Mr Manning as Prime Minister. These were fatal mistakes. The UNC is out of power because of Mr Panday. And now that he is no longer Prime Minister, we witness over and over the sad spectacle of a faded figure who rants and raves and hurls insults at perceived enemies as he sees his supporters slipping away. He has now become a sorry spectacle and an embarrassment to the UNC and to decent folks everywhere.

Mr Panday we regret to say, is now completely discredited. He is seared with the mark of corruption by the branding iron of public perception. And this, together with his rantings and ravings in public since losing power, disqualifies him in the eyes of may for the high office of Prime Minister. Unfortunately for the UNC, the contamination which Mr Panday carries, is a blight on its honest Parliamentarians and their continued association and support for him tarnishes them even more so in the public eye. What then, must be done to save the UNC from collapsing into the old DLP and suffering the fate of forever being the Opposition in Parliament? The trouble is that the UNC was never really a party in the accepted sense. The UNC was Mr Panday, and since he is no longer acceptable to the public at large as a credible choice for the office of Prime Minister, the first thing on the agenda for the UNC must be to settle the leadership issue. Until this is done, the Party will be in limbo and will not be able to move forward. Mr Panday has said time and again that he is ready to quit politics. We suggest that this is the time for him to graciously bow out. Many of the UNC parliamentarians and followers know that this is the best thing for the party and they must persuade Mr Panday to resign not only in the interest of the party but of the whole country. If Mr Panday refuses to leave, the parliamentarians should do the right thing and seriously consider withdrawing their support from him as Leader of the Opposition in parliament and as Political Leader of the party.

The next thing will be the select a new Political Leader. Unfortunately, none of the present parliamentarians, tarnished as they are in the public eye, can command enough non-UNC respect to draw the floating votes in the next general elections. The one thing left to do is to revert to the last internal elections of the party and invite Mr Ramesh Maharaj to take over as Deputy Political Leader, the position to which he was elected by the party membership. In the absence of the Political Leader he will then assume the position of Political Leader (Acting) until a new Political Leader is validly elected. This will legitimise the Party’s internal affairs and allow it to move forward and begin to ready itself for the next general elections. The perception of many is that Mr Maharaj’s “past” disqualifies him from high office. A man is not what he was but what he is be-ing and do-ing now. Whatever Mr Maharaj may have done in the past, he has in recent times shown himself to be a man of considerable drive, courage and principle. Corruption is a major political problem of today and Mr Maharaj has shown very clearly where he stands on this issue, even t the extent of going up against his all-powerful Leader and being “fired” from the office of Attorney General for it. He has also shown a timely vision in the legislation he has piloted during this stint as Attorney General, among them being the Freedom of Information Act, the Equal Opportunity Act and the latest Integrity Act (the last two of which the Government is suspiciously hedging about implementing). This is a man who should be given a chance. He has earned it. At the present time, there appears to be no alternative to Mr Maharaj if the UNC is serious about  getting back into power in the foreseeable future. What we are suggesting is not going to be easy, perhaps even impossible in the context of UNC politics. It will take selflessness and courage and even some sacrifice, noble traits which the UNC now desperately needs from its leadership. But all of this falls within “what works” and is the only way to go if the UNC is to survive as a vibrant political party and as a potential Government in waiting. The grim alternative is the UNC as the Opposition in parliament for a very, very long time to come and a de facto one-party state which spell disaster for the country.

(To be continued)