WHO IS IN CHARGE AT UNC?

There had been no doubt with respect to who was numero uno of the United National Congress when Panday was Political Leader. It certainly had not been Wade Mark, when he was Chairman of the UNC.

Neither had it ever been any of the Deputy Political Leaders. In turn, it was Panday who had appeared to crack the proverbial whip, when he was Political Leader, and not any other individual member of the UNC’s National Executive, nor for that matter the collective membership. Basdeo Panday had been, undeniably, in charge at the United National Congress. In addition, in much the same manner that having had his appointment as Leader of the Opposition United Labour Front in the 1976-1981 Parliament revoked, and his being reappointed to the position, he had ensured that he would be, undisputably, in control, the old Bas was in control of the UNC.

Unquestioned leadership of main Opposition parties had always been a feature of Trinidad and Tobago politics since the country was a colony and had moved to Party politics. When, for example, the late Tubal Uriah Butler had headed the British Empire Workers and Citizens Home Rule Party there had never been any doubt as to who was leader.

Indeed, the Party had been referred to as the Butler Party! It had been the same when Bhadase Sagan Maraj had headed the People’s Democratic Party, and when Dr Rudranath Capildeo was leader of the Democratic Labour Party.

It had governed the political culture of Trinidad and Tobago and Panday’s reign as Political Leader of the United National Congress had merely kept pace with fact, and with what was expected of the person at the top. So that when Leader of the Opposition, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, announced on June 26 at a UNC forum at the Freeport Presbyterian School that the National Executive of the Party was the controlling body, and that Winston Dookeran, who had succeeded Panday as the Political Leader of the UNC, would have to abide by the decisions of the Executive there was the perception of a new culture having been introduced. Her declaration: “He (meaning Dookeran) cannot function by himself” rubbed additional salt into the proverbial wound.

It was the writing of a new chapter, if not in the country’s history of Opposition politics, then, specifically, in that of the United National Congress.

I ask the question, and not rhetorically: Could Kamla Persad-Bissessar have said that, and publicly, with respect to Basdeo Panday when Panday was Political Leader of the United National Congress? Would she have dared? In turn, was she gently rebuking Deputy Political Leader of the Party, Jack Warner, who had announced only the previous day (June 25), that he had given a special assignment to former Attorney General, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, to develop a plan for the UNC which would outline the several ways it could win the forthcoming General Election in Trinidad and Tobago? A news article in the June 26 edition of Newsday reported the plan not only pointed out that Maharaj hoped to submit the plan to Warner this month, but that he (Maharaj) could “not say whether Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar had authorised the development of this plan.”

Interestingly, Panday, who has no locus standi in the National Executive of the United National Congress, and by this I mean the right to intervene in the affairs of the Executive, has, on occasion, been reported as having been consulted on key issues of the Party. Which, of course, to the wholly disinterested person, is uncomfortably absurd. Or is it that Panday is de facto Leader of the Party? Any argument that because he was once Political Leader of the Party his advice was now being sought strikes as somewhat odd.

Or is it that Panday, who has been reported as being in England, is still effectively in control. If he is, however temporarily, then he is following, unwittingly, should he be controlling the UNC from England, the path taken years earlier by Tubal Uriah Butler in 1947, and later by Dr Capildeo. I wish to remind that in the same way this is expected of Basdeo Panday, both Butler and Capildeo returned from England to lead their respective parties.

Perhaps an enterprising media reporter can seek an interview with Panday, and ask of him what date, airline, flight and time he is likely to return to Trinidad and Tobago so that representatives of the media, generally, print and electronic, would be able to interview him and glean from him whether he is in agreement with the present apparent dismissive attitude of some members of the National Executive of the United National Congress re the present Political Leader.

Journalists may wish to ask him as well if, should he decide to return one day as Political Leader of the UNC, he would be prepared to accept this newly developed approach of the Party vis a vis the Office of Political Leader. From where I sit the approach is interesting.

Meanwhile, is Dookeran’s strategy that of being made a martyr by elements within the United National Congress and so winning over needed support of the rank and file membership of the Party as well as other voters outside of the Party?