UNC in creative disruption

IF there were any doubts about Rushton Paray’s United Patriots’ purpose, determination and supporters, their public meetings, held last week, made all that clear.

From Felicity to Mayaro, the crowds were larger than expected. Referring to Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar's string of “election losses,” Mayaro MP Paray loudly declared: “I am tired of losing.” (Big applause.)

Chaguanas West MP Dinesh Rambally insisted: “Kamla must go, Kamla must go.”

Larry Lalla, SC: “UNC now a bobolee. UNC must change if we want to win.”

Passionate attorney Kiel Taklalsingh: “We staying right here, not going anywhere.”

Win or lose after June 15, they “staying.” Apparently, the Patriots are trying to do what Persad-Bissessar and her team in a rough campaign did to Basdeo Panday in 2010: a palace coup.

At her Star Team meeting in Longdenville, she admitted that Paray’s Patriots’ objective is to “remove her as political leader.” She confidently declared: "Fellas, that and God face you will not see.”

She added: “Everyone wants to claim the UNC now because they see we heading for victory in the next general elections.”

So that's her battle cry. All this as the UNC opposition faces a troubled but stable PNM government.

Within the current UNC implosion, words like “treachery, betrayal, ingratitude and neemakaram” were spun around. Referring to Naparima MP Rodney Charles, Persad-Bissessar complained: "I see a man who sits next to me saying nobody with integrity wants to have anything to do with the UNC ... That kind of hurting me.”

Rebuffing Persad-Bissessar, Patriots’ Charles said: “It doesn’t matter where I sit.”

With such battle cries, yesterday’s UNC divisive election raises several explosive questions: Will there be reconciliation, isolation or expulsion? Will there be a five-member group of “independents,” or just five roaming “dissident MPs”? What will Patriots’ supporters do now? Will Persad-Bissessar’s 14-year UNC leadership be internally strengthened or weakened towards the election?

Paray’s United Patriots appears to be a kind of creative disruption, with unpredictable results. Also, with broadcasting rivalry – Kamla’s Star Team on Hindu SWAHA’s ieTV and Paray’s United Patriots on Hindu TV Jaagriti – all this suggests some change in the country’s opposition politics, if not leadership.

Persad-Bissessar is battling another political adversary. The parliamentary confrontation two Fridays ago between PM Rowley, Finance Minister Colm Imbert and Persad-Bissessar over the one per cent increase or decrease in VAT has left the population wondering.

Persad-Bissessar, waving a “Cabinet note,” No 1232 as “proof,” accused the government of planning to raise VAT (currently 12.5 per cent) as part of a list of some 14 “proposed revenue-generating measures.” This looked serious. Increased taxation scares voters.

She also declared: “The country is bankrupt.”

Soon after she spoke, Rowley angrily accused Persad-Bissessar of “deliberately misleading the public.” He continued: "I can tell you without fear of contradiction that nowhere in the corridors of power of this Government is VAT increase a discussion.”

Given the severe contest inside the UNC (Star vs United Patriots), Rowley unleashed a sly political undercut which surely found favour with the United Patriots.

Noting Persad-Bissessar’s “embattled condition,” he said: “Leave her right there. Don’t move her.” The political insinuation was clear. To him, she seemed “easy to beat.”

Sensing the political damage from the VAT-increase allegation, Imbert was more vicious. He described Persad-Bissessar’s claim as “foolish, ridiculous and false.” Imbert explained that the note in question was just a “working paper” with calculations about “increases or decreases” in taxation. Cabinet made no decision, he affirmed.

But, undaunted, Persad-Bissessar, still dissatisfied, wondered why the reference to a “one per cent increase?” Was it an “intention” or just a “calculation”?

At a Barrackpore meeting, she accused the PNM government of “lying again,” adding the note “clearly reveals all the tax measures the Rowley-led Cabinet is discussing to increase revenue.” Perhaps she should have stayed in parliament to respond to Rowley. This is beyond being just a storm in a teacup. It is a matter of political credibility for the electorate to judge.

Our parliamentary democracy largely depends on an accountable government and a vigilant opposition. And hence citizens like myself should take a keen, continuing interest in what happens in and to both parties. It is called civic duty. Democracy was made for free citizens, not for insecure politicians.

As evidenced in the UNC’s Star Team vs Patriots contest, a democratic organisation or society will slowly decay if not stimulated by a diversity of voices. It is a perpetual struggle between freedom of speech and stability.

Facing a stable PNM, how much “freedom” can the opposition politically manage?