Democratic Dilemma

The delay in the executive election of the United National Congress (UNC) would confirm to some people the ineffectual image of the party. Originally slated for September 18, the election has now been put off to October 2. The ostensible reason offered by the eight UNC MPs who asked for the postponement was for them to complete the party’s "transformation process." Whatever that is, the MPs should have known the election date and so, had they been on the ball, would have done whatever necessary tasks in good time. So the other reason gleaned from UNC sources, as told in the Sunday Newsday, seems more likely — that the delay is really to facilitate those MPs who wish to vie for the leadership position should Basdeo Panday step aside.

On the face of it, this seems politically doltish. The UNC’s greatest weakness — as well as its greatest strength — has always been its dependence on the undoubted charisma and political savvy of Mr Panday. This means that no amount of backroom manoeuvring is going to displace him if he does not choose to step down as political leader. It also means that, if he anoints a successor, that individual will, not step up, but be walked to the crease by Mr Panday. Therefore, the only result that jockeying for leadership can accomplish would be to heighten both internal dissent within the party and the image of disarray without.

This is not how it should be. Political parties should be so organised that challenges for various executive positions, including that of political leader, should be seen as a normal part of the democratic process. Indeed, it would be an odd beast who joined a political party but who was free of ambition, if not to actually lead, at least to be in a position of influence. And it would say much for our political parties if they easily accommodated such ambitions, since this would imply that they would also adhere to the democratic instinct when governing the country. But this is manifestly not the case within either the PNM or the UNC, because the political culture of our society is still that of the Maximum Leader. The only difference is that the PNM’s party machinery is much better-oiled than the UNC’s, so internal conflicts in the former either don’t start, are quickly suppressed, or never get aired in public. However this is not the only reason that the PNM is enjoying a much more secure tenure in office than, given its several key failings to date, it should.

It is not mainly because of internal dissent, however, that the UNC is not seen as a credible alternative for office. It is also because of the image of untrammelled corruption which tainted the party when it was in office; it is because of Mr Panday’s habit of shooting from the mouth on matters requiring sensitivity and cogent analysis, as well as the various charges against him yet to be decided in a court of law; and it is because of the party’s failure to capitalise on the Government’s deficiencies. But this last factor may well be the overriding one.

Our citizenry, after all, is one which perhaps too readily forgives deficiencies in its political leaders and their parties. Even corruption or incompetence do not necessarily trump ethnic support in determining who will win office. So it may be that the UNC’s failure while in Opposition to present cogent criticism and credible alternatives to the Government’s policies has sidelined the party in the public mind. The party’s handling of its internal election, and especially the outcome of any contest for the post of political leader, may be essential in revamping the UNC’s image before the next general election.