Question for Mr Dookeran

Now that his trial on fraud charges is going ahead, Mr Panday has become an official liability to the party he leads. This has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence, which is still to be decided by the courts, but with political perception. And the political perception of the UNC is that the party is an untrustworthy entity. It is, in fact, that perception which has placed Winston Dookeran, with his squeaky-clean image, in the post of political leader.

Mr Panday took it upon himself to elevate Mr Dookeran to that position. The erstwhile Silver Fox, politically perceptive as always, realised that the UNC could not win another election unless it mended its corrupt image. But, as is often the case with maximum leaders, Mr Panday apparently found it difficult to let go of power in fact as well as in name.

Despite Mr Dookeran having been elected to the post of political leader, Mr Panday in his new post of party chairman, which was formerly occupied by UNC Senator Wade Mark, continued to function as the effective political leader of the party.

Meanwhile, Mr Dookeran has said and done very little to establish himself as a true leader. It was left to those in his corner — MPs Gerald Yetming, Manohar Ramsaran, Ganga Singh, Roodal Moonilal — to criticize Mr Panday for holding on to the reins of power. And the "independent UNC MPs" Gillian Lucky and Fuad Khan continued to function outside the party hierarchy. Yet now Mr Panday is asserting that UNC disunity is a thing of the past.

The public would no doubt like to know when and how this came about. Mr Panday cited as proof the fact that he and Mr Dookeran were appearing on the same platform. But that is hardly compelling evidence. What about the dissident MPs? Has unity been achieved by wooing them back to the fold or by sidelining them?

When the next general election is called, will the public find that the unified UNC just happens to not include any of the MPs who had criticized Mr Panday?

And, if that is so, how will voters react, since the exclusion of these MPs will send the message that Mr Panday is the real leader of the UNC?

These are all questions that Mr Dookeran, as the UNC’s official political leader, had better clarify as soon as possible. If the various MPs have indeed buried their hatchets, then this will bode well for the UNC and, by extension, the country.

But, if this is not the case, then Mr Panday’s happy assertion that "There’s no disunity in the party anymore" will be seen as an attempt to hoodwink the public in order for the party to get back into office.

And, while citizens do not expect politicians to be entirely truthful with them, the UNC’s credibility is now sunk so low that even trivial political statements, if they turn out not to have merit, will harm the party’s prospects.