Ends justify means for panday

THE EDITOR: The leader of the opposition may well have said, “Le parti c’est moi!” His concept of political morality is not merely a paradox; it is indeed a conundrum wrapped in an enigma. Soberly it brings to mind the slogan under which we rallied some decades ago — “Morality in public affairs.” Perhaps Mr Panday has his personal paraphrase of that apparently in his political view the ends justify the means. It seems that MP Gillian Lucky has displayed a sense of morality that is alien to the political practice of the UNC and certainly unacceptable to the principles, or lack of same, of the honourable boss of her party. Indeed this remarkably outspoken lady, according to reputable newspaper reports displayed an heroic sense of virtuous independence and stood up for what she knows was right: certainly, in a metaphorical manner of speaking, she displayed more testicular fortitude than her septuagenarian political jefe and the forever babbling politically resurrected Ramnath.

It is shocking revelation that the senile silver fox should, as the press reports have stated, declared from his party chair of power that  “politics has a morality of its own” and that if Miss Lucky’s integrity was more important than politics she should leave politics. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip but we have heard Mr Hyde and many of us are appalled by the despotic insinuations of that remark. Integrity has been defined (Webster’s Dictionary) as “an uncompromising adherence to a code of moral values: utter sincerity, honesty and candour; avoidance of deception or expediency.” Does the honourable veteran politician denounce these virtues in his political practice? It makes this sly political old fox’s statement a terrifying revelation of the Machiavellian ruthlessness that direct the maximum leader of the UNC in the pursuit of his political ambitions. It casts a frightening pall of suspicion on his frequent allusions to marches of his party fanatics into Port-of-Spain.

What then is the morality of Mr Panday’s UNC? Who dares trust a leader whose political ethics are founded on a morality that seems to be defined on the basis of expediency: one in which the ends justify the means? Miss Lucky whose parliamentary record illustrates an unwavering support of the party and whose oratory has inspired the loyalists to increased fervour in her party’s cause has reportedly decided to make a principled stand for her personal and political integrity. She must be complimented for her candour and courage. Her example has inspired Dr Fuad Khan to support her cause and openly take a position on political integrity and morality.

Yetming persists in his waffling, opposing yet supporting, his party’s status quo. One has to wonder if some UNC supporters will now remember the courageous Hulsie Bhaggan who suffered a political execution and the bold, intrepid challenge of Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj who dared oppose the maximum leader on ethical issues. Finally Dr Rowley’s cause has been strengthened and publicly justified by the disclosures of this disgustingly unprincipled stance of the opposition leader. Surely the government minister must feel that his position is just, as he witnesses how his attackers now turn upon themselves in a self-destructive frenzy. Can Basdeo Panday survive this crisis of his own making? Is this the opportunity for Dr Khan to reintroduce Ramesh to the UNC?

GEORGE DAMIEN
Arima