Amnesty and unity?

It is suggested that a deal is going to be made to drop the charges against all current and former members of Parliament in return for electoral “agreements” and even the possibility on the “agreement” of who will be our next President.

Of course, we must ask ourselves if it is possible that the leaders of the country — so at each other’s throats each week, as they give us pantomime for Parliament — could really be hatching such a plot?

Well, to start with, their behaviour in Parliament — for us to see on our TV screens and our children to ask why big people get on so — is mostly a show. That is to fool us into thinking they are against each other, so they can try to turn us against each other. When the shouting is done, they all adjourn to a club, owned by one of them, to lime and drink Johnny Walker Blue Label with each other. And you and I are arguing in a rumshop, ready to fight, over what they said earlier in Parliament.

It is in these “clubby” conditions, that the topic of amnesty can so easily arise — especially as amnesty for those on the other side means amnesty for our side too. And if such an initiative could be realised, think of those messy details that need not come out in evidence. And, after all, it’s not like these men currently before the courts are “criminals” — like bandits and kidnappers. It’s only fraud we’re talking about here folks, and we could as well call it political fringe benefits. So let us wait and see what might come out of this talk — and look carefully at our political leaders. Of course such deals are not new — but they do have a tendency to fall apart. Accepting support, in order to appoint someone as President, has backfired in the not so distant past.

And please don’t think that because you saw Manning and Panday sulking together, on the front page of last Monday’s Newsday, that they are not talking. The sulking was probably the result of the intense embarrassment they must have been feeling to be sitting among the Parliamentary staff whom they both betrayed so badly in July 1990. The PM had the poor taste to remind the staff of their “heroism” when he spoke. What must they have thought of him? There is no record of Panday speaking at the function. Maybe no one remembered to wake him!

And our PM is setting us up for the announcement of some new self aggrandisement. And it was not “Righteous Leader? — Prosperous Nation!” That ridiculous statement, ladies and gentlemen, is just the beginning. As the UNC continues to disintegrate, Mr Manning’s boldness in proclaiming himself a Deity is increasing. Maybe we will have a public anointing when Benny Hill places his high-voltage hand on Mr Manning’s forehead.

But if our political leaders are really plotting to find ways to drop all the fraud and corruption charges which their colleagues are facing, two questions arise. The first is how will the AG and the court system react to such an attempt? And the second is — will we, the people accept that?

The AG does not have an enviable role when it comes to prosecution of government ministers. It must take either strength of character or great vindictiveness to bring charges against a colleague and still sit with other colleagues. I do not know if this AG is vindictive. I believe he had reason and strength to have his colleagues charged. For those on the other side, I cannot say the same. However, I would be surprised — and extremely disappointed — if the cases before the courts were discontinued by Mr Jeremie. But we all know which former AG might, if returned to power, discontinue the cases. So, while we may have confidence in the Attorney General, we must remember that the AG only serves at the pleasure of his Prime Minister. When a former AG began pursuing charges against his cabinet colleagues, he was removed from office.

So you see folks — it could happen. And if it does, what will we do about it? Will we, after all our clamouring against crime, decide that fraud and corruption in government are (as members of Parliament probably feel) not real crimes, because no blood was shed? And if the Government and Opposition were to agree to drop the charges against their brethren, in the name of some sort of “unity” to pass laws against “real crime” — like murder, banditry and kidnapping — would you think it is reasonable? After all, government corruption does not kill people, so if the price of being safe in our homes is to let the politicians enrich themselves, then let them have their amnesty and their unity. We don’t care. We accustomed to that.

Well, it’s not so easy. Government corruption kills people too. Ask the family of the murdered councillor from Mayaro. Consider the hundreds of URP “contractors” who have been shot in the ongoing war for who gets to rent names in order to collect the millions in URP salaries each month. And just remember, one or both of our political parties has access to large quantities of cocaine and artillery shells. Surely none of you believe that the cocaine in the water tank was planted by bandits or conventional criminals (unless they were hired by some politician).

So, watch out my friends. These Righteous Leaders may be preparing to “Fix Me First” and last — and to grant “We Turn Now” to the Opposition.