Ramadhar vs Abdullah... (Agents of Exchange)

Prakash Ramadhar must go to bed every night wondering why is he, of all the politicians out there,  so disliked, distrusted and despised by the masses. I mean, he's a decent enough guy, he's probably not the most dishonest man you will ever meet, and he's surrounded on all sides in the Parliament, the government, and even his own party by some extremely devious and dangerous characters, so why is all that negative emotion aimed at him? I cannot speak for others but to me it comes down to his easy duplicity. Having warned him on numerous occasions that he would never be able to function as a Member of Parliament, a Minister, a political leader and a family man when he took it upon himself to challenge Winston Dookeran for that party's leadership, I feel free to speak to his massive failure at attempting to position himself as a leader of any value to the society while continuing to distance himself from his own campaign promises. That he has taken huge risks only when it suited his agenda speaks volumes as to his character and designs, but what seems to irk most people is the calm assertiveness he lends to otherwise unethical acts of the government of which he is an enabling factor. He has developed a reputation as a waffler, someone who appears to take whichever side of an argument is beneficial to him at the time, and he has also earned himself a reputation of being spineless and otherwise anatomically challenged. That the Congress of the People has been reduced to three circles on his watch - his clique, those who are currently benefitting or are working hard at benefitting from the party's involvement in government financially, and those who either have nothing else to do or nowhere else to go. Why do I come down on him so hard? Because of what he represents. A class of conniving politician that is of no value to the nation and who has made a mockery of the 'third force' challenge in order to feather his own nest. In my view we cannot see the political back of him soon enough and I look forward to his answering for his own actions and public record. Prakash Ramadhar is totally unelectable and his appeal is limited to his shrinking sphere of influence.

David Abdullah is as nice a guy as you ever want to meet and possibly the absolute opposite of Prakash Ramadhar in every meaningful and material way, but yet is also unelectable and is wasting a lot of his time offering himself as a suitor to a bride already enamored and infatuated. This is what David Abdullah seems not to get, that the people already have politicians playing the role he is trying to play. The country does not need another 'pander to me' yes-man with no clue, no direction and no new ideas and somehow he does not realize that this is precisely how he comes across. We are awash with those. He had an amazing opportunity to forge a new 'base' as it were, one built on the struggles of labour to which three fifths of the country could empathize, but he seemed to have lost his way and miscast himself. A strong labor party would have brought another ideology to the table, something other than the tired tribal ethnocentric nonsense of the two major parties, but perhaps David was not the right man for that role. Unable to build a 'constituency' of his own, he is going to have to challenge for those that are already aligned to the People's National Movement or the United National Congress, but as he has nothing new to offer them, why would they consider switching? His role was always going to be that of spoiler and will possibly cause some close finishes in any election he and they (the MSJ) competes in due to labor's numbers, but even if he can sway his members away from their traditional tribal loyalties, what is he offering of any real difference to them and the nation at large? His PNM 'lite' approach has little appeal outside of the round Table, and with the Section 34 issue deflating, where can he turn to for relevance?

Perhaps this is why we remain so politically challenged, because our system (read 'we' the voters) seem to only reward either yes men or smart men; those who are either willing to position themselves as whatever they need to do or say to become electable, or those who are so thirsty for it they will do and say anything to achieve it. Our own standards are set so abysmally low that we demand nothing of those who position themselves to run for the nation's highest offices. The Congress of the People inferred the most vile attributes to the PNM members for not ejecting patrick Manning from leadership, yet the same COP sits idly by while foisting Prakash Ramadhar on the nation. Similarly the organization of Labor's interest is built on struggle, so why is that not at the front and center of the MSJ's approach? Is it that they are hiding from dealing with the issues of the day to make labor appear politically sexy? The change we need cannot come from these tired games but from people who are demonstrably willing to challenge the status quo and to match their beliefs with their actions. This country does not need any more politicians, it needs leaders - men and women of vision, character and determination; people who have given their lives to being agents of change. Until we start electing those to high Office we will continue to get more of what we got in the past - posers, pretenders, con-men and tricksters, liars, backstabbers, bandits and deceivers. If we want REAL change, we must choose it by what we say and what we do, by what we reject and what we give our support to. We must demand more, or we will never get real change...