Who is your leader?

Many citizens will neither believe nor disbelieve Mr Panday. The United National Congress leader has over the years gained a reputation as a man who will say whatever is convenient, even if his statements blatantly contradict previous ones. In normal circumstances, this does not harm a politicians’ stocks, since voters — whatever they might tell pollsters to the contrary — do not generally care of politicians lie or not. What voters care about is if politicians represent their identities and interests, and this Mr Panday has appeared to do for most of his career. But this applies in normal circumstances, and those circumstances have changed for Mr Panday.

It is true that the allegations of corruption that surround him and other former high officials of the UNC have harmed the party’s image. But Mr Panday’s taking up golf and ingratiating himself with the so-called "parasitic oligarchy" also reduced his political appeal in a manner that surely helped solidify the conviction, even amongst his supporters, that the UNC government was indeed corrupt to the bone. These allegations are still to be proved or disproved in a court of law, but the court of public opinion has already returned its verdict. And it is that court which put Winston Dookeran into the de jure role of UNC political leader.

De jure, but not de facto. That latter role still belongs to Mr Panday, moreso now that he and his slate of candidates occupy 12 out of 18 positions on the party’s executive. And therein lies a problem for the UNC. The fact is, Mr Dookeran has attained his post only because of two factors. One, he was given the stamp of approval by Mr Panday; and, two, he is perceived as a person of integrity. But, as we have warned before, if Mr Panday is perceived as the real power behind the UNC, then the party’s prospects for re-election may remain dismal.

Mr Panday has not helped his party’s cause by his conduct during the UNC’s internal election nor by his decision to stay on as Opposition Leader. His argument has been that he has remained as party chairman in order to ensure that the UNC does not collapse. Critics have suggested that he is using Mr Dookeran as a smokescreen to build back the party’s political viability and will, at the opportune moment, step forward to wrest away the reins of power.

The fact that Mr Panday decided to make the Budget response yesterday adds credence to this latter view. Were he truly concerned about the UNC’s survival, and were he truly assuming the role of elder statesman, then Mr Panday would have allowed Mr Dookeran — the political leader, trained economist, and former Central Bank governor — to lead the charge. By choosing to make the response himself, and doing so in the aftermath of his slate’s sweeping victory, Mr Panday was confirming that he is the actual leader of Opposition politics in the country.

How this will affect the UNC’s prospects only the next election will tell. But the party faithful have made it clear that they do not, in fact, want significant change in their organisation. It is now up to Mr Dookeran to see if he can convince the electorate that he is a real leader and, more importantly, one who can convince the electorate that the UNC is a viable government-in-waiting.