It is unconstitutional to reprimand a member of a party for exercising free speech. The constitution guarantees free speech whether you belong or not to a political party. Being a member of a party does not take away one’s free speech right. One is or ought to be free and praised for critiquing one’s party’s leadership, policies, strategies, weaknesses, and the like. Critiques are great to expose and address weaknesses and to strengthen a party to make it battle ready for an election. Thus, it was quite shocking to hear or read comments from some UNC MPs, supporters, Councilors, party offices, and groups attacking Rushton Paray when he called for respecting the party’s constitution and hold internal elections when due in June. I can’t quite recall any of Dr Keith Rowley’s supporters or defenders or PNM MPs, Councilors, members, party groups attacking a fellow PNM for critiquing the party, its leadership, policies, and weaknesses. Dr Rowley scheduled internal elections and he defeated his challengers as predicted by this writer on every internal PNM election going back 2011. Kamla Persad Bissessar also defeated her challengers when she held internal elections. So why are UNC folks so ‘thin skinned’ when a call was made to hold internal executive elections when due? UNC leader Kamla Persad Bissessar always held elections when due. I am certain that Kamla will call an internal election when it is due. No need for political ‘chelas’ to attack anyone for reminding the leader that party elections are due in June. NO need to show public loyalty to the leader.
I notice that MPs and other individuals who are most vociferous in their condemnation and leading the attack on Paray and his supporters are holders of ‘safe’ seats. They are in a race to attack Paray (and those who support him) to demonstrate their unquestioned loyalty or who has stronger loyalty to the boss. They believe their behavior and demonstration of sycophantic loyalty will guarantee re-nomination to their safe seat; others hope to get a safe seat. But in the 2025 election, seats once thought to be safe are under threat and could change hands. They are also reminded that UNC under present make up is not returning to power in 2025. A strong third force will sweep the safe seaters from their coveted seat.
Voters are fed up of the status quo; they want change and good riddance of several undesirable MPs on both sides of the aisle. One should not be surprised if PNM replace several MPs who the party supporters want gone; voters are dissatisfied with their performance, and they will inevitably be replaced as happened in 2020 to strengthen the party’s position in 2025. Like PNMites, UNC supporters too want most of their MPs gone as they have very low likeability and performance ratings. Ironically, the MPs who are attacked the most are the ones with the highest performance and likeability ratings. Rushton Paray, Dinesh Rambally, Anita Haynes, and a few others are extremely well liked by constituents and praised for their stance. They service their constituents well. Their performance brings back memories of the kind of parliamentary service once rendered by Trevor Sudama, Chandresh Sharma, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, and Roodal Moonilall, among a few others. Once re-nominated, they will win their seats comfortably.
The UNC executive and leadership need to answer several critical questions: Will UNC replace undesired MPs or will leader loyalty triumph? Is a safe seat for some more important than winning government? Will undesirables be willing to trade their ‘safe’ seat for government? Is loyalty more important than being in government? Is leadership more important than the party being in government? And if so, what about the future of the party’s supporters? Shouldn’t the future of the party and the country be more important than leadership?
In looking at seats in Trinidad, PNM’s 20 and UNC’s 19, the PNM will retain all 20 including five that can be considered as marginals. All the marginals have been fortified and have become relatively safe. Among the UNC’s 19, of four marginals, the PNM is leading in three and tied in one. So the PNM is likely to pick up all four marginals. If a third party enters the fray, the PNM is guaranteed to pick up at least four seats from UNC and possibly more.
The UNC also faces a serious threat in eight so called fifteen ‘safe’ seats. If a credible third force emerges under the leadership of someone of integrity and proven track record, say the equivalent of a ‘Winston Dookeran’ as in 2007, or a ‘Bhoe Tewari’, or a ‘Mervyn Assam’, it can capture eight or even more UNC ‘safe’ seats and possibly PNM’s seats as well, rendering the UNC a minority party.
