16 July 1998, 926 words
People generally believe that politicians have absolutely no principles. They think that politicians will do whatever they have to in order to get and keep power, and that principles play no part in determining their actions.
Well, people are wrong. And they are especially wrong if they think the above applies to the UNC regime and its leader, the Honourable Prime Minister, Mr. Basdeo Panday.
Take, as just one example out of a whole plethora, the Julian Rogers issue. It is parenthetically obvious to all but the willfully blind - excuse this blowhard prose style, I'm in Anil Mahabir hack-mode here - where was I? Right, parenthetically obvious etc., that the handling of the Rogers work permit issue was in no way motivated by the UNC administration's desire to hold on to political office.
Denying Mr. Rogers's work permit has clearly not redounded to the political benefit of the UNC. Rogers was liked, or at least not resented, by UNC supporters (save of course those who don't like Black people as a matter of principle.) So denying his work permit could only result in resentment or indifference and, since CCN was hardly likely to offer Rajnie Ramlakhan or Kamal Persad the job of host of Morning Edition, there was no political benefit to be gained from such an action. All that could happen, and all that did happen, was increasing hostility towards the UNC by those already opposed to the regime; a loss of support from those who were sitting on the fence; the destruction of Joe Theodore's public- and self-respect; increasing mistrust of Mr. Panday's commitment to democracy, press freedom and Caricom integration; and the diminishing of his reputation in Caricom and the wider world.
Yet, despite these high costs, the UNC stuck to its guns and, by golly! Rogers had to pack his bags and go. Mr Panday stuck manfully to principle - the principle being to shaft the media at every chance. Of course, Mr Panday would never admit that this is, in fact, the principle by which he operates. Instead, he has been saying that the Rogers issue was simply a matter of adhering to the law. However, since the first story in The Independent was the illegality of Grand Bazaar, which was built without approval from Town and Country, who Planning Minister Trevor Sudama forbade from taking legal action against the owners; and since the $8oo million for the Airports project isn't in the Budget; and since ignoring the directive of the Inter-American Organization contravenes international law - given all this, I think it is safe to assume that the Government's adherence to "zero tolerance" is as elastic as the waistband of an old pair of jockey shorts. And the whole point about principles is that they are not as elastic as the waistband of an old pair of jockey shorts.
By the yardstick of constancy, we find one other principle which Mr. Panday has also stuck to continually, despite the fact that the political costs far outweigh the benefits. Quite soon after the UNC assumed office, Adesh Nanan was identified as the most incompetent Minister in the Cabinet. What was worse is that he was incompetent in a portfolio that Trinis generally take seriously, since it directly involves their children. And in the portfolio of Agriculture, which embraces the core support base of the UNC, Reeza Mohammed was caught lying about the Susan Harrysingh appointment and proven incompetent in the Froghopper disaster, thus becoming a major embarrassment to the UNC. But even Reeza is not so much of an embarrassment as country-bookie cowboy Dhanraj Singh.
In all these scenarios, a political leader who was only interested in keeping power would have either removed these Ministers or transferred them to other portfolios. But not Basdeo Panday, no sirree. It might be argued that he has taken no action on this front because of the slim majority he holds in Parliament, but that argument is plain silly. Panday had much more to gain than lose politically by taking action, but chose not to do so. And the same is true in respect to the definite inaction over Ish Galbaransingh's airport contracts, Steve Ferguson's killer dogs, Brian Kuei Tung's finessing of a Maritime payout, Vasant Bharath's questionable dealings with rice suppliers from India, and Ken Soodhoo's creation of a high-paying consultancy for himself.
So Mr. Panday's second principle seems to be to place loyalty above political pragmatism, at least when loyalty involves those whose money or constituencies he needs in order to remain politically pragmatic. It could be argued that such loyalty costs him political support among the rank-and-file, but the wonderful advantage of ethnic voting is that issues which affect people's well-being don't matter at all. This is why the airport development project is going ahead full-tilt with nary a change in contractors or pricing. The JCC has sworn that, for the $800 million the Government is willing to fork out for this project, local contractors can complete the project, build ten schools, and still save taxpayers over a hundred million dollars. But has Mr. Panday taken them on? Has he implemented even one recommendation from the Deyalsingh report as he promised to do? No! Because the man does not care about political popularity as long as he remains friends with people whose pockets he will need come the next general election.
Me, I couldn't take the opprobrium. But, of course, I am not a man of two strong principles like Mr. Panday.
Copyright ©1998 Kevin Baldeosingh