NEED I SAY MORE?

What if I told you that I suddenly feel that I have nothing to say after  months of unwilling but unavoidable absence from Sunday Newsday’s page ten, well, I mean, nothing that I haven’t said in the past? You’d probably respond, “But so much is going on lately in politics!” However, I’d have to challenge you in turn. I’d demand for your elaboration of “so much.” “Like what?” I’d want to know. “What is so different that it is worth comment?” Don’t tell me that you want me to write about Government’s decision to buy a costly helicopter gunship when this purchase is no political quirk but remarkably in keeping with a demonstrated determination by this administration to spend millions on crime-fighting oddities such as eyes in the sky and blimps? Gunships are par for the course, pointless PNM policy. We probably all feel that unless the Government is preparing for a Hugo Chavez invasion, the PNM is once again wasting our money by purchasing this gunship? We certainly must share a sense of monetary deja vu.

We’ve been here before, seen the money misspent before and will see it misspent again and again. Is all this nonsensical use of our money not ordinary in TT? And does anyone expect the helicopter gunship — bought of all places in fascist Israel — to make the least dent in crime, to stop the two murders that take place everyday in Trinidad? Not at all. Do we suppose that the Government will listen to our concerns about its wasteful and wacky approach to crime fighting? Not unless we are from a posh neighbourhood and we march through town unexpectedly. Then and only then will we see not only Government but Opposition MPs jump through political and legislative hoops with such gusto and grins that we’ll have little choice but to ask ourselves if “Massa Day” is truly over or whether both parties are not panicked to death by the idea of life side by side without the usual buffer.

In other words, readers, there’s nothing in a gunship that’s not in a blimp or two blimps, nothing to elicit any reaction from me other than a light steups or a polite yawn. What’s the point of yet again observing that gunship and blimp politics will yield what we are seeing: a 2006 that has dawned as bloodily as 2005 ended. It’s murder, murder, murder and in case you didn’t notice, more murder. More people will flee the country this year. They might not bother to march again. Am I wrong? So really, is anything different from last year and the year before it? You convince me that for example, there is some spectacular, never before witnessed political manoeuvre in the latest machinations of Basdeo Panday?

Let’s see. The UNC held elections. Panday, under pressure from high and low in the UNC to bow out, decided to try to outsmart everyone by having “the voter acceptable” Winston Dookeran appointed leader. Then he nullified the results of the UNC election by not encouraging his MPs to write to the President and name Dookeran as Opposition Leader. Let’s flashback to 2001 when the UNC Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj-led slate swept the internal UNC election polls. What did Panday do? He had these results cast aside, threw Maharaj out of his Cabinet. It isn’t even surprising that he’s trying to use Maharaj to undermine Dookeran, is it? Panday’s tenet is “by any means necessary.”

There’s nothing new to write about, nothing at all. What about Dookeran’s acceptance of this humiliation- is his placidity surprising? Is his resignation in the pipeline? Does the MP have any political pride? No, no and no. If Dookeran could easily return to serve under a man who insulted him and called him the worst of names years before, he can pretend now that Panday isn’t still controlling the UNC and that he, Dookeran is not even half a leader, such is his lack of power.  You or I might long have bid Bas farewell, but not Winston. He can take the disrespect, the humiliation and still take his seat on the UNC front benches. What would have been worthy of mention was Dookeran being worthy and walking.

Hold on a second. I’m not being quite so correct or fair. Political life has taken an unexpected turn for the better in one regard recently, notwithstanding the reprehensible and continuing efforts of many groups to exempt themselves from having to declare their assets to the Integrity commission, and notwithstanding our impression that lately we have to go to the Magistrates’ Court on St Vincent Street if we want to see our parliamentary representatives. It is more than encouraging that our Prime Minister is prepared to refer members of his Cabinet to the Integrity Commission and to expect them to resign if charged with criminal offences.

One of Panday’s biggest faults was his response to allegations of corruption. He’d dismiss the charges by demanding that the accuser “bring the evidence.” It was an arrogance that contributed to his downfall because he underestimated the public’s growing need for accountability. Patrick Manning has learnt from his predecessor’s errors and has made a difference. Otherwise, to date, 2006 merits the very political comment 2005 did because with one exception, political life in January consists pretty much of what it did in December: a government’s crazy crime schemes, which lead to nought; non-ending bacchanal in a two-headed Opposition UNC; and sustained resistance to the Integrity in Public Life Act by many in public life.  And that’s saying plenty about nothing if not entirely too much. suz@itrini.com