Founding of the UNC

AS THE campaign for positions on the national executive of the United National Congress (UNC) is in progress for the long-overdue internal party elections and, as the current state and future of the party is being discussed and examined, it is perhaps an appropriate time to remind readers of the beginnings of the party, the reasons for its coming into be- ing and the role of those who w e r e primarily responsible for its creation.

The political chaos which characterised the implosion of the National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR) (and the concomitant loss of legitimacy of the government in early 1988) gave birth in time to a new political entity which sought to give voice to and fulfil the aspirations of a large constituency in the country.

My credentials for engaging in this exercise could hardly be questioned. I write as one of the original founding members of the UNC who stuck with Basdeo Panday throughout this political upheaval of 1988/89 and the ensuing mobilisation effort, who moved the motion for the formation of the UNC at the historic rally in the Aranguez Savannah on October 16, 1988, who supported Mr Panday with vigour and fortitude when an attempt was made to hijack the UNC in late 1990/early 1991, who was responsible for organising the special national assembly at Rienzi Complex on August 31, 1991, which replaced the then existing national executive (an act which stabilised the party in preparation for the general election of December 1991), and who served as general secretary of the party for two of its critical formative years.

The reasons for the break-up of the NAR are many but it had to do primarily with the conflicting objectives of demand for the sharing of power on the one hand and the preservation of the basic status quo and power relationships on the other. The question that had to be confronted was to what extent the new reality and dynamics of the political equation could be accommodated in the governance structure.

In terms of leading personalities, Mr Panday has to bear some of the blame for what transpired but ANR Robinson, as leader of the party and government, had to be assigned the overwhelming burden of responsibility.

In December 1987, John Humphrey, as Minister of Works and Infrastructure, was dismissed from the NAR government and, in February 1988, Mr Panday as Minister of External Affairs, Kelvin Ramnath as Minister of Public Utilities, and myself, as Minister in the Ministry of Finance, followed suit. Govindra Roopnarine and Raymond Pallackdharrysingh, who were backbenchers at the time, aligned themselves with us.

There was mass disenchantment and confusion among the thousands of citizens who gave us their fulsome and enthusiastic support in the general election of 1986. The issue that confronted the four of us recently dismissed was whether a significant portion of the electoral support we enjoyed would continue to place their faith and loyalty in our leadership and look to us for guidance.

I advised Mr Panday that the only way to find out was to go back to the people, have dialogue with them and seek to revalidate our political relevance. Otherwise, we may well find ourselves confined to political oblivion.

An ad hoc committee was formed which organised scores of public and group meetings in various parts of the country. We held at least three meetings a week and covered locations from Diego Martin to Mayaro and Sangre Grande to Cedros. We even went into Laventille. At these meetings we updated our supporters on the current state of national politics, reaffirmed the basic principles and philosophy to which we were committed, and sought their views on political direction.