Just under 100,000 citizens are registered to vote on December 5 in the UNC internal elections. This contest raises some interesting issues which will undoubtedly go ignored.
Many view this as a referendum on the leadership of former PM Kamla Persad-Bissessar, full stop.
That, however, is a decidedly myopic approach to this process. Oropouche East Member of Parliament Roodal Moonilal has assembled what, to UNC supporters, looks like a strong slate of candidates.
Entering the fray, somewhat belatedly, Vasant Bharath is blaming the “No Rowley” campaign, among other strategic missteps, for their loss at the polls.
All those calling for change, argue that leading the PP coalition to five successive election defeats is ample grounds for the former PM’s political exile.
However, the UNC and its supporters would do well to accept that on the matter of the 2015 elections defeat, it was very much a team effort. Their campaign was certainly weak, but the PP government didn’t crash out of office because of a technicolour wheel emblazoned with Dr Keith Rowley’s face.
Their tally of scandals, allegations of corruption, nepotism and misbehaviour in public office began to grow shortly after the coalition’s ascension to government and maintained a steady pace until September 7.
Not to downplay the breath-taking mistakes in the PP’s campaign, those vying for leadership of the UNC are eager to finger mere woeful planning as the principle cause for the PP’s failure.
Critics of the previous administration would also have the public believe that the PP was the first government voted out because of corruption. But Patrick Manning’s PNM was escorted out of office just five years before, as public enmity swirled around their variety of impropriety. As is always the case in this country, we labour over symptoms and neglect the disease. Defining corruption as a UNC problem is a convenient narrative.
The population won’t commit to deeper analysis of our generic proclivity towards graft.
So we believe Kamla Persad-Bissessar helmed the party to staggering elections defeats. Similarly, it is said that Kamla’s injudicious appointments and poor vetting skills created a free-for-all environment in which long-sleeved bandits romped through the Treasury.
As such, her detractors believe one person must shoulder the blame, and that person must go.
There can be no doubt that the party has some serious introspection in its future.
Distilling all its failures in one personality though, is grossly misguided.
Finding one donkey to pin the tail on neatly dodges the reality that state agencies and boards are all part of the apparatus of governance.
Whether through a lack of competence or integrity (or more devastatingly, both) ordinary citizens, ensconced in positions across the spectrum of government service, either failed to perform or betrayed the public trust by prioritising their own interests. The notion that corruption experienced over the past five years was entirely owed to the UNC’s rewarding of partisan hacks is to suggest that malfeasance in public life didn’t exist prior to 2010.
The inescapable fact remains that, contrary to popular belief, this is no galaxy of intellectuals, nor are we bursting at the borders with conscientious citizens defending virtue and decency.
What we have in spades are average folks in ministries, state agencies, boards and regional corporations happy to do nothing or do only for themselves. More than PNM or UNC, those people are you and me, (well more you than me really).
Corruption exists in all strata of society; blaming it entirely on a sitting government is like cleaning a mirror with Vaseline.
Additionally, a great many contractors and purveyors of goods and services who bilked the state for all they could, or delivered subpar work for above par invoices have no allegiance to anyone but themselves.
These creatures are all around us and wash all their political jerseys in “Sorflan,” wearing which ever one is in season. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he doesn’t exist. Similarly, our belief that corruption is the sole preserve of political parties, not ourselves, allows this scourge to thrive.
Bickering about who is the bigger tief also serves this purpose quite nicely.
The UNC internal elections should be viewed as an introspective exercise, one which can begin the cultivation of the sort of inspired and educated class of citizen to fill what is an obvious vacuum.
Somehow, hanging our corrupt ways and the decline of the PP government around the neck of one person just doesn’t make any sense, but it is certainly the easier thing to do.
UNC voters will also need to consider that choosing a political leader is a considerable responsibility as this individual must be acceptable on a national level, not just in the UNC hinterlands. In short, can he/she find favour with all citizens, regardless of their politics?
The choice isn’t merely good leadership for your party but effective leadership in opposition, a critical element of good governance.
Voters, in demanding change, must demonstrate that they can change, acknowledging their responsibility for our quality of governance.
It was true on September 7 and will remain so on December 5.
