History will judge

In the wake of this brouhaha, it is significant that the comments from the UNC executive continue to gloss over the truth. “Mr Dookeran has abdicated his responsibilities as Political Leader for the longest time,” said Ms Persad-Bissessar, as though the executive had not done all in its power to sideline Mr Dookeran.

And UNC founder Basdeo Panday asserted that Dookeran’s “departure” would not hurt the party politically. But the fact of the matter is that the UNC has already been damaged by this unseemly infighting, and the formation of a leadership council will seal, but not heal, the wound.

In respect to Mr Dookeran’s political stocks, the question is how badly he has been hurt by his decision to remain with the UNC and fight for leadership. This newspaper advised him many months ago that he should have left and formed his own party, since his expulsion was a foregone conclusion.

By not doing so, if Mr Dookeran forms his own party, as reports indicate he might, he will now be seen as having no other option. On the other hand, this may not be politically fatal, if he can use his near expulsion to portray himself as a political martyr sacrificed on the altar of the Pandayites’ machinations.

And what about the UNC’s political stocks? Despite Mr Panday’s pretence to the contrary, the departure of Dookeran surely means that a certain section of the electorate who might have supported the UNC, even if they will not vote for Mr Dookeran’s new party, will simply not go out to the polls. The UNC itself also labours under the burden of an executive widely perceived as untrustworthy.

Nor are voters likely to ignore the fact that the UNC’s real leader, now returned to active if unofficial duty, has been found guilty of breaking the law and is only out of jail because he has an appeal pending. The talk that Mr Panday intends to return to the Prime Minister’s office through the back door has already begun to make the rounds, and this in itself may be enough to turn away voters.

Indeed, there is no little irony in the manner in which Mr Panday has attempted to demonise Mr Dookeran. He has said that the erstwhile UNC Political Leader is not his own man and is being guided by financiers and advisers who work for the ruling PNM. But Mr Panday named no names, and his own record showed that he was quite happy to bring into his own administration former PNM financiers and MPs.

Mr Panday also said that history would remember Dookeran as the worst judge of human character. This may well be true. But it raises a question: how does Mr Panday think history will judge him? If he is concerned about history at all, he would be conducting himself in a far different manner. And the fact that he is not shows not only Mr Panday’s dismissal of history, but his dismissal of the best interests of the people of Trinidad and Tobago.