Kamla, Rai and elections

As a conscientious disruptor, UNC MP Dr Rai Ragbir has become politically famous or infamous, depending on who is judging.

Two weeks ago, the Manzanilla/Cumuto MP bravely broke ranks with his party and surprisingly voted with the PNM government to pass the Whistleblower Protection Bill by 22-15 votes – a simple majority, departing from the earlier special-majority version.

This has left Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar fuming against Ragbir. An angry Persad-Bissessar warned that the newly-installed UNC 12-member national executive (natex) will deal with Ragbir through its disciplinary committee, giving him an opportunity to explain.

She appeared upset also because Ragbir belongs to Mayaro MP Rushton Paray’s United Patriots, which not only forcefully challenged her leadership, but, with stout legal help, valiantly fought her natex slate in the June 15 elections.

However, Ragbir’s United Patriots team – Rushton Paray, Dinesh Rambally, Rodney Charles and Anita Haynes-Alleyne – followed the UNC’s position.

Why did Ragbir vote so when the PNM already had its majority? Could his blow have been less severe if he had abstained instead?

Anyhow, all hell broke loose over Ragbir. PNM MPs went into a celebratory mood, exchanging smiles with Ragbir, while Persad-Bissessar and her shocked MPs were left wondering how to deal with this “party disloyalty.”

That was hot news. Matters of crime and the economy became temporarily sidelined.

UNC whip David Lee angrily said that since 2015, Dr Ragbir knew the UNC opposed the bill.

In fact, it is beginning to look as if Ragbir is prepared to be a sacrificial lamb for a bigger cause. How will he vote next time?

Saying he was putting “country before party,” Ragbir defensively explained his renegade action was inspired by “numerous concerns expressed by individuals regarding certain actions within the Sangre Grande Regional Corporation but who were afraid to report these matters to the police.” More information to come, he added.

UNC corporation chairman Kenwyn Phillip told Ragbir to take his “whistleblower” complaints to the police.

Assuming Ragbir appears before the UNC disciplinary committee, it may decide on his renegade vote, but will the committee ask him to forward his regional corporation “disclosures” (complaints) to the police?

The Whistleblower Protection Bill (still to be passed in the Senate) defines “disclosures” as “information by a person which shows or potentially shows that improper conduct has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur.”

Appearing undisturbed, Ragbir said he was guided by his “conscience, his Christianity and his spiritual and moral values.” Now, how can you blame a man voting for such reasons? Ordinarily in life, such people are admired, celebrated for standing up for “principle.”

But there is much more in this case. To what extent was Ragbir allowed to vote by “conscience” or by ANR Robinson-type “moral and spiritual values"? Persad-Bissessar didn’t instruct a “conscience vote” for this bill. Surprisingly, Paray said he “did not know” of Ragbir’s intention.

It was a bitter PNM vs UNC fight in a Westminster-type Parliament and, until changed, where party loyalty is a very precious commodity. It is the backbone of party politics even when it creates a moral dilemma.

An MP may disagree with his party or leader; he can battle inside at caucus or party convention. If left unsuccessful and disgruntled, the MP can swallow his pride or ignore “conscience” and stay put until next time. Or he can tell the party he is now “independent,” subject to whatever steps the party may then take.

But to come to Parliament and unexpectedly vote against the party position, no matter the MP’s perceived justification, implicitly means the MP has opposed the whip and the party.

The honourable way out is for the MP to consider resignation. Until changed, this is Westminster party democracy. That is what Robert Le Hunte did when, as PNM Minister of Public Utilities, he said he had a “policy disagreement” with the PM rime Minister. Similarly, it seemed, when former agriculture minister Clarence Rambharat returned to Canada.

Given the very bruising, name-calling UNC natex election campaign and knowing human nature as I do, I believe the United Patriots, one way or another, will continue to challenge the UNC leadership in order to “prepare UNC to win the next election” – an election which increasingly looks like Dr Rowley’s bombshell. Will the UNC be ready and able?

Fighting off the accusations of “betrayer,” “party reject,” “disloyal,” “politically vindictive,” etc, Ragbir coolly gave a lawyer-type reply: “I note the tragic irony that my party’s disciplinary committee, which has long been defunct, has now seemingly sprang into action – not to address members charged with crimes or those facing serious allegations of corruption or human trafficking, but rather to deal with my vote on a bill meant to fight corruption.”

Dr Rowley will smile.

UNC front-liners, party whip Lee and deputy leader Dr Roodal Moonilal may not take too kindly to this. Has Ragbir burnt the bridge of return?

So while Persad-Bissessar, Paray and even Ragbir and Jack Warner are calling for “unity towards the elections,” human nature also has a morality of its own.