Of political jokers and twisters

It now appears that Prime Minister Patrick Manning is determined to have his way, at all costs, to have himself safely ensconced in the Red House before “Rudolf the Red nose reindeer” gets any ideas about setting up shop in good old TT. On a more serious note it’s unlikely that any rational reason will persuade the would-be “father of the nation” and “godfather of the Caribbean” from abandoning his Red House plans as an irrational impulse can only be neutralised by a similarly irrational one. My own foolish guess is that Mr Manning is blinded by the notion that because Basdeo Panday and his minions have painted themselves into a political corner by their bovine non-cooperation stance and their avowed commitment to social disharmony, then Manning can do, and get away with, what he bloody well likes. The latest report that a firm decision has been arrived at as to the “eviction of parliament” with even ventilating the issues in the people’s (not Manning’s, or Panday’s) parliament is proof positive that we’re in for a real roller coaster ride whenever Patrick gets one of his “brain waves” or “thoughts,” as he calls them. You know what thought made a man do? If you don’t, ask Pastor Patrick.

Would you believe that the fellow had mooted plans to relocate the parliament which included the demolition of the $38 million Magistrates’ Court which was yet to be occupied? Would you believe that not only was the Chief Justice not consulted but he only learnt of it from a newspaper report? On pointing out that the judiciary has been slighted, the Prime Minister and his then AG Glenda Morean embarked on a characteristically clumsy effort at “damage control” with which I do not wish to bore you. Only to say that both PM and AG seem woefully ignorant of the relationships between persons occupying constitutional institutions and how those institutions interface. Once again Manning has handed Panday a political lifeline that the leader of the Opposition is likely to grasp with both hands and feet. Having become only too familiar with the idiocies and antics of those two political gymnasts, I’d like to think that my attention is pitched at a somewhat higher level. Now, it’s hard to believe what lengths our politicians would go to, in their devious machinations, twirling and twisting like the proverbial Twirly and Twisty — two well-worn screws. One recalls, for instance, how when our democracy was under siege, our parliament under the gun and everybody else realised that we had entered dangerous, unchartered waters a number of self-styled political leaders managed to trivialise the situation. One fellow, for example, is reported to have claimed that it was simply a matter between Robinson and the leader of the coup. Another so-called political leader claimed that he thought that the assault on parliament was all a joke and his then pal (now deemed by him, thug) may have only responded to the “wickedness” of the Robinson dispensation.

It will not be easy for future historians to understand how ANR Robinson could have made it possible for Basdeo Panday to sit in the Prime Minister’s chair and spit so soon after in his (Robinson’s) face by affording an official audience to the coup leader who had not long before had him hog-tied in the face of possible imminent execution. In all fairness, one ought to recall that it was Panday who pursued Robinson for a political accommodation. To this day, Robinson maintains that there was no quid pro quo deal between himself and Panday. But being the simpleton that I am, I’m very reluctant to see political accommodations as simply being acts of altruism, especially when those involved have political records that are very much at variance with altruistic considerations. I had long suspected that Ms Pam Nicholson had been simply taken for a ride by Mr Robinson. It appears that Sister Pam has, in retrospect, felt “used by Robinson to reach whatever political heights Robinson wished to reach. It is an undisputed fact that prior to the election Panday, accompanied by one of his party’s financial backers, met secretly with Robinson, who was accompanied by a presumed adviser. According to the report, Panday was silent and Kieu Tung did the speaking. Robinson’s response was, reportedly, dismissive of Panday’s presumptuousness in feeling that the Republic’s presidency was his to give. The “you scratch my back and I’ll rub your belly” is nothing new.

Was it a case of coming events casting their shadows? Before the election, a television appearance was carded to feature Panday, Robinson and Manning. Manning didn’t show. Robinson held a crumpled piece of paper which he had retrieved from the Red House during the coup period and it was a note written by Manning to Dookeran. Robinson wished to confront Manning with that note as Robinson drew the possible inference from the context of the note that Manning had more than an inkling of prior knowledge of the coup. Interestingly, there was more than a little speculation as to how much or how little premonition (shall we say?) Basdeo Panday had of the impending coup. In all fairness, one might add that a great deal of speculation was based on “circumstantial evidence” or “connecting the dots (shall we say?). Both gentlemen have adamantly denied any fore-knowledge of the impending July ‘90 coup. Ironically, when they were pals, the coup leader, Abu Bakr, swore publicly that it was Manning and not Panday who had “guilty knowledge.” Now when Bakr fell out with Panday and was apparently in the Manning camp, it was Bas and not Patrick who had “guilty knowledge.” Yuh think it easy with dem politicians where credibility is concerned?