Maha Sabha and the UNC

In the 1950s Bhadase Maharaj led the Maha Sabha, the sugar workers’ union and also formed the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). Through his instrumentality, religion and party politics were very connected. Eric Williams, recognising that the Muslim and Christian Indians were not part of the PDP sought alliances with them. Hence, in 1956, the PNM had Kamaluddin Mohammed and Winston Mahabir, respective representatives of the Muslim and Christian communities. That relationship of religion and party politics is not confined to the Indian community.

One only has to see how both the PNM and the UNC have over the years wooed the members of the Baptist community — with the UNC Government led by Basdeo Panday stealing a march on the PNM and giving a public holiday in recognition of the Baptists’ struggle to have their religion decriminalised.

Then too there was the famous intervention against the PNM by the Roman Catholic Archbishop in the 1956 elections. It has also not been uncommon to find Anglicans holding key positions in the PNM — Patrick Manning included.

It is unusual in recent times, however, for there to be an overt effort by religious leaders to support any one political party, far less to seek to influence the internal process of a party so as to determine the outcome of something as important as its leadership. Quiet, behind the scenes influence may be usual, but not an open and direct intervention. So last Thursday’s meeting by Hindu leaders with first, Mr Panday and then with Mr Dookeran is a significant signal.

The UNC is in obvious trouble given the deep and, it appears, irreconcilable divisions between the Dookeran faction and the Panday faction. I say Panday faction because, like the Hindu leaders, I too believe that while Mrs Persad-Bissessar is the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, the de facto leader is still Mr Panday.

What was interesting is that it was reported that the Hindu leaders told Mr Dookeran that he should form his own party and that, if he did, he would get their backing.

Will this be enough to swing the balance towards Mr Dookeran in a General Election, or will it still be a case of major vote splitting with Mr Panday’s UNC garnering large numbers of votes purely on the basis of loyalty to the Chief? Time will perhaps tell, but one senses that Mr Dookeran continues to build momentum while the other side is stagnant.

This column was written before the reports of the UNC Assembly held on Saturday afternoon and therefore I cannot judge how strong the Panday faction still is. A massive crowd would mean that the UNC Executive (the Panday faction) retains large support amongst the grassroots which could translate into both votes and seats.

On the other hand, the march led by Ramesh Maharaj could not be considered a success. While it received regular and consistent media play, it did not ignite the popular imagination. This can be seen as a set-back for both Ramesh and the UNC Executive, especially since Messrs Panday, Warner, Mark and Gopeesingh all participated at some stage or another.

Mr Panday has called for confrontation with the PNM and is at every turn calling on UNC supporters to engage in confrontational actions. This march was supposed to be the first and, as both Panday and Ramesh have stated, will not be their last. The fact that it did not receive the support that they had wished for, may send a message that the population — even the UNC segment of it — is not motivated by these leaders at this time.

I say this too, because The Leader of the Opposition was not present at all in the march, even when it traversed her constituency. Is this a signal that there is a three-way split in the UNC, with Kamla not happy with the active promotion of Ramesh?

It is also interesting to have read that Mrs Persad-Bissessar is not in favour of amending the Constitution to replace the Prime Minister with a President. Remember that Mr Panday was in agreement with such a change, so we may have several dynamics at work at the same time within the UNC camp.

This of course simply strengthens the hand of Mr Manning and the PNM and this is why, no doubt, he believes that he can proceed with the reform of the Constitution in the way he is. It is an unacceptable approach to lay a working draft of a constitution around which citizens must respond. But this is a reflection of the PNM of today which thinks that nothing really can stop their plans for the country.

I just want to stick one pin in the PNM bubble and that is that history is replete with experiences where the ordinary people get fed up with being excluded from power, wealth and participation in the decision-making process. And when they do they take action. That time may well be coming in Trinidad and Tobago. The signs are beginning to be seen. Community protests are happening with greater regularity. Workers’ actions are occurring more and more often. In this regard FITUN’s march on Friday August 25, will be important. If it is large and powerful it will send a strong message to the economic and political decision-makers — that enough is enough and the ills of the country, beginning with high food prices must be solved.

I hope that many of you will come out and be part of this march. It is not about party politics and elections. It is about the interests of people and demonstrating that not only the decision-makers have power. Don’t just grumble and complain and say — “allyuh have to do something.” This is not about “allyuh” or “dem,” it is about all of us, together, taking collective action, action that can be very powerful indeed.