Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Drama in the Session... (UNC, Who's your Leader?)

I am being inundated by rumors of plots and counter plots within the UNC Government, of conspiracies afoot to challenge the outcome of May 24th 2010 by shady deals, some of which are almost too Machiavellian to believe.

At this point, it is all conjecture, theory, rumor and allegation, but as there promises to be shake ups and changes soon (some say as early as Carnival Sunday night), I thought I would make what little that I know available to the country as a whole.

First off, you need to be aware that according to our Constitution, the Member of the House who commands the most support as conveyed to the President is recognized to be Prime Minister, and I have been reliably informed that the President has to be guided accordingly.

Should Members decide for any reason to throw their Parliamentary support behind anyone in the House other than the current Prime Minister, we could have a change of leader outside of an election, commonly referred to as an ouster.

Plainly put, there are rumored to be alleged conspiracies afoot to wrest the Prime Ministership from Kamla Persad Bissessar by means of a palace coup of sorts, and to place this now transient support in none other than a major Party financier.

There are also rumors of infighting among at least three 'factions' within the Party sabotaging each other and this is what is at the heart of the Government coming across as inept.

These rumors go further to say that the appointment of and the Prime Minister's continued support of George Nicholas as the Chairman of CAL despite Warner's protests and public confrontations on the matter is to her a line in the sand and to him a firmly flung gauntlet of sorts; That the AG's best attempt at quelling the dispute has done little to solve the substantive issue, that of power and authority and who really calls the shots within the Party.

I have also been told that the existing CAL Board members were motivated to approach the Prime Minister with a zero sum proposal regarding removing the Chairman which she flat out refused as George is one of 'her' people, in a sea of other appointees of questionable loyalty.

That the Reshmi Ramnarine appointment and the subsequent leaks of sensitive information surrounding her appointment leading to her resignation are also at the heart of a Party rumored to be at war with itself.

Members at cross purposes voicing public opinions outside of their domain and contradicting what is trying to be held as a Party line is supposedly another indicator of the tearing taking place at the seams.

If this is true then many dots start to connect themselves and maybe the media should be investigating this.

The question I put to the national community is this - Is Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar besieged within her own Government?

Does she command enough 'loyalists' to survive an attempt like this?

What of the COP Parliamentary members, to whom do they pledge their support, and is it governed by a COP Party line?

These questions have to be asked an answered as regardless of the shenanigans and horse trading taking place within the Parliament and without, the UNC is by and large an East Indian Hindu Party, and these developments may well plunge central Trinidad into chaos.

I have been told that many past UNC stalwarts are aware of these developments and are taking steps to prepare for the coming battle for the sugar belt and the void in 'authentic' leadership.

Now if this or any part of it is true we could be in for some interesting times as the very stability of our Government is brought into question.

In light of all of these rumors I would like to call on the Prime Minister as this country's elected leader to address the nation as to the veracity of these allegations, and to make known to the general public if there is any truth to these disturbing rumors.

These are already very turbulent times and the people of this country and this nation can ill afford more political bacchanal on any front.





6 comments:

  1. If any of this is true, it all stems from the fact that the leadership at the helm is as solid as a jellyfish.

    It also gives credence to what has been said on the ground from the start. The current PM was being used merely as a beautiful face to front the party/government.

    She will need to make real decisions, serious decisions in order to even stem the tide of rebellion within.

    ReplyDelete
  2. WHATEVER HAPPENS, HEAVEN HELP US!!! WE CANNOT DESTABILIZE THE COUNTRY!!!
    PLEASE THINK OF COUNTRY FIRST!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Phillip, sections 76, 77, and 49 of the constitution may be of interest. http://www.ttparliament.org/documents/1048.pdf

    Effectively, as I understand it, a sitting PM is not removed from office simply by a loss of popular support in the House. Should that happen, in the absence of a declaration of no confidence passed in the House, the most that can happen is that government collapses as laws cannot be passed (remember Ralph, Ramesh, and Trevor voting against the Government in 2001).

    The Leader of the Opposition is a different story (Section 73 (4)).

    Back to the PM. The constitution is silent on a PM losing leadership of the party mid-term. In fact, that is only considered when the PM is being appointed, and is not a factor in having that appointment revoked (Sec 77 (1) & (2)).

    If a palace coup does occur in the UNC, a change in PM will most likely only occur through a General Elections.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is 76 b) of the Constitution:

    "where it appears to him (the President) that that party does not have an undisputed leader in that House or that no party commands the support of such a majority, the member of the House of Representatives who, in his judgment, is most likely to command the support of the majority of members of that House;"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Section 76 (1) (b) only applies "Where there is occasion for the appointment of a Prime Minister, the President shall appoint as Prime Minister-" (Section 76 (1)).

    This "occasion" when there is a vacancy. This only occurs:

    (i) When a declaration of no confidence is passed in the House, and the PM does not resign or advises the President to dissolve Parliament with 7 days (Section 77 (1)).

    (ii) After the dissolution of Parliament, the President is to appoint (or re-appoint) a PM (Sections 77 (2) (a)).

    (iii) For some other reason the PM ceases to be an MP (Section 77 (2) (b)).

    A sitting PM cannot be removed simply because of the lack of popular support, unless a declaration of no confidence is passed in the House.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As I am not a constitutional Attorney I shall have to defer to your position until I am further advised.

    I know our Constitution is modeled after Westminster where the Member who commands the most support in the House becomes Prime Minister.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.