With 20 days to go before the United National Congress elects its political leader, two of the three candidates, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and Kamla Persad-Bissessar, were interviewed by the TTR’s NATALIE BRIGGS. The same questions, bar a few differences, were posed to both contenders. There have been some editing for reasons of brevity (especially in the case of Mr Maharaj) and clarity. Mr Panday agreed to be interviewed but was eventually unable to accommodate due to travel commitments.
KAMLA PERSAD-BISSESSAR
Were you surprised when Mr Maharaj decided to run?
No.
Do you expect either Mr Maharaj and/or Mr Panday to drop out of the race before nomination day?
I don’t.
Were you shocked to learn that Mr Maharaj’s colleagues—Jack and Peters of the so-called Ramjack faction—are supporting you, Kamla? What were your reactions to Mr Maharaj’s concerns that you were receiving support from unexpected quarters?
No. Both Jack and Gypsy said they would support me long before I announced that I was going to be a candidate. I don’t know what unexpected sources Ramesh means. I welcome everyone’s support, including Mr Maharaj’s.
Are there any circumstances under which you will withdraw from the race?
There’s none I can think off. I am in this race to win.
How do you respond to Mr Maharaj’s assertion that you were a non-performer?
He is entitled to his opinion. The records contradict that. Check the Hansard and check my track record outside of Parliament.
How open are you to the strategy of unity with COP in order to remove the PNM? How do you plan to approach this issue?
A strong opposition is what’s needed, and the UNC will work with all parties to find a formula for a united platform. You will recall that my party mandated me to work with other parties on unity and I have already been working on that. We’ll maintain the dialogue. There is consensus already of what are the most pressing national problems.
If you do not win the election, what would be your future relationship with the UNC?
I am UNC and I will win this election.
Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj
Given your comments about Kamla’s track record, were you surprised she decided to run?
I am not saying it was non-performance. That would be totally incorrect. I am saying that just like it is in America when Obama and Clinton had to fight the primaries to determine the candidate for the US presidential election and the electorate had to examine the track record of good persons, in order to record who was the better choice for candidate—it is the same criteria that has to be used in this situation because the electorate of the UNC would have to look at the track record and performance in office of Mr Panday, Mrs Persad-Bissessar and myself.
There can be no doubt that Mr Panday has had a good track record. He has fought in the trenches etc and he has founded the party base. The campaign against Mr Panday is not that he hasn’t had a track record; it is not that he is not capable of being a leader or a good prime minister; the question is: Do you think Mr. Panday has carried the party to the fullest and that he cannot carry anymore to win an election?
In the case of Mrs Bissessar and myself, the question would arise—what kind of track record do these two persons have in order for the electorate to feel confident that the person would be the kind of person to fight, to stand up and to cause the party to win a general election? Mrs Persad-Bissessar has been an Attorney General and she has been a Minister of Education and has done well.
The electorate would not say the person has not done well. The electorate would want to know how much you have done in order to do this job. And the electorate will be comparing the track record of Mrs Persad-Bissessar to Mr Panday’s because you are asking a person to be political leader of a political party.
The political leader of a political party must be somebody who has identified himself or herself with the people on the ground, have fought in the trenches. The trenches is not in Parliament, the trenches are on the ground…And therefore what I am saying is notwithstanding Mrs Persad-Bissessar’s capability, notwithstanding the fact that she has done well as a minister or well as a Member of Parliament, this is not enough, in my view, for the electorate to determine whether one can be political leader….
Since 1967, I have been at the ground level of the society, fighting with the vendors, fighting with the landless. I’ve been involved in demonstrations. We have stopped the government from building the smelter in Chatham. We have been able to force the government to be able to give RAMESH from Page 4
former sugar workers their lands. I have been able to force Mr Manning to appoint a Commission of Enquiry into UDeCOTT. I have used the law in order to get redress for people in Trinidad and Tobago, public interest litigation.
So they would have to examine what I have done. They will have to see what I did in the party in order to make the party win from 1991-1995.
I was the Chief Whip and I was the Strategy Officer. At that time, I assisted in building the opposition from a weak opposition with a few seats before the election, to an opposition which had the most seats in Parliament of a single party in the 1991 election.
I was able to build so that the party was able to win the election in 1995. From 1995 to 2000, I was instrumental in the party. I was in a leadership role in the party. We were able to get 300,000 votes. After I was fired- now I did not leave the UNC; I was dismissed as Attorney General by the then Prime Minister because of the position I took in the fight against corruption. I did the same thing Mr. Rowley did.
As Attorney General I told the Prime Minister official corruption must be investigated as a duty to the people and I was dismissed. The political leader at the time took steps to have me expelled from the party. And since I was dismissed, the UNC has never won a general election in Trinidad and Tobago. Never. The only time the UNC won governance in Trinidad and Tobago was when I was in a leadership role in the Opposition and in government. Mrs Persad-Bissessar, on the other hand, has been the de facto leader of the party.
When Mr Panday had the problems with his case and he was suspended from the parliament, she was the opposition leader in Trinidad and Tobago from about 2004. And in 2007, when the general election was called, the opposition grew weaker, not stronger.
The records of the Parliament would show that during that period of time, Mr Winston Dookeran was in Parliament. And the records will show whether the Opposition forces grew stronger or weaker. It grew weaker. When the UNC had to contest the election in 2007, after she was de facto leader of the party, what did the party do?
The party decided it could not beat the COP in that election. What did it do? The national executive met and decided to bring Ramesh into the party. Mr. Panday, within half an hour of Mr Manning calling the election, called me. He said: ‘Manning now announce an election, I have to have you, I want to meet with you.’
We met the next day, we had lunch and Mr. Panday wanted me to fight a seat. Mr Jack Warner was delegated by the party to come and try to persuade me to help the party.
So if the opposition was strong and could have won an election, they would not have to come to me. That is my issue. If you all have been given an opportunity to build the party- the party at that time had Kamla, Panday and Jack Warner; Jack Warner was a deputy political leader and Kamla was a deputy political leader- so if Kamla is going up for election as leader, she would have to show what she did as deputy political leader to be able to mobilise the party in order to win the election. That is what these elections are about. The elections are about choosing a leader.
When I went back to the party in 2007 to fight the Tabaquite seat after I was persuaded to fight it, they wanted me to fight otherwise the COP would have won that seat. Anand Ramlogan would have won that seat. The party wanted a lion or a tiger to fight Tabaquite; it was a marginal seat. Why they didn’t send Kamla? Why they didn’t send somebody else? But they wanted me to fight.
Do you expect either Kamla and/or Mr Panday to drop out of the race before nomination day?
No. I don’t expect that. I expect a fight to the end.
Were you shocked to learn that your two colleagues—Jack and Winston Gypsy Peters of the so-called Ramjack faction—are supporting Kamla?
I wasn’t shocked because in the movement for change, we were not discussing taking policy decisions on who should be leader or not. The policy was ‘let us get internal elections in the party’. Our objectives were perhaps very different. Our policy was probably very different. I always said I would not join the Congress of the People.
I am a UNC and would remain a UNC. And my position was that the political base of the UNC should not be dissolved. Those were my strong views and that is why at the last meeting I went to (the Movement for Change), I made it quite clear in my public address that I would not become a member of the Congress of the People. And clearly there were members of the Movement for Change who were gravitating and working closer with the COP.
I have no objection to that. I supported that but I made my position quite clear that if the intention is to dissolve the UNC or move the political base of the UNC to the COP, that is not my objective.
I do not know if that had any relationship or connection to whatever decision was made. I want to make it clear that I do not know and I am not making any accusations. Mr Warner and Mr Gypsy Peters remain my good friends. And we must show the political maturity to make decisions which may not be in the other’s favour without ending personal relationships.
We will always have political differences. If you run a political party and there are no political differences, then something is wrong. The question remains in how you manage it. Do you want to say that everybody has to agree with you? If that is the case, we don’t need change because we have that in the UNC.
Are there any circumstances under which you will withdraw from the race?
No. No. I do not intend to withdraw from the race either.
How do you respond to Mr Panday’s assertion that you were the one who helped remove the UNC from office and that you cannot, therefore, be trusted?
That was not Mr Panday’s position after the election in 2001. Mr Panday and I met. Mr Panday agreed in the presence of others for us to go around the country and explain the issues and for us to win the election when they were called in 2002.
At that time, there was no question of trust. In 2005, when the membership of the party demanded that Ramesh come back into the party, there was a massive rally at Mid Centre Mall of 40,000 persons. At that meeting, Mr. Panday did not say that there was no trust in Ramesh and that I break up the government. I go further.
In 2007, when he called me and wanted my help to fight the election, he didn’t say that there was no trust in Ramesh and that I break up the government. As a matter of fact, when he went to the political rally in Mid Centre Mall, he gave me additional responsibilities and commended me.
When he appointed me Chief Whip, he showed that he had trust in Ramesh Maharaj. When Mr Panday had difficulty with his case in 2005 and wanted somebody to help him to get out of the case, he didn’t say he didn’t have trust in Ramesh.
So I think that is really an irrelevant issue. They do not have anything on me. I stood up for principle and he knows those are my strong points. And he knows these are telling points in this election. So what he is trying to do is divert the issue.
But if Mr. Panday is saying he wants a political party in which members must compromise in the fight against official corruption, then he is not looking for me. I have told the membership and I am telling them if that is the kind of leader they want to lead their party, Ramesh Maharaj does not want the leadership.
How open are you to the strategy of unity with the COP in order to remove the PNM? How do you plan to approach this issue?
I am committed to unity and accommodation, not only with the COP, but with other opposition parties. One of the first things I would do if I become political leader is to speak to Mr. Dookeran and leaders of other opposition parties. I would offer the other opposition parties half the number of opposition seats in the Senate.
So if we have six senators, they would be able to use three in order to be able to work within the Senate to fight the government. We will discuss ways and means we can work together at the ground level and other levels.
If I become political leader, I would have a totally different strategy of fighting battles against the PNM. I would orient the battles more to the people on the ground level. The Parliament would be used as an effective machinery.
To clarify Mr. Maharaj, you are saying you are for unity as long as this does not interfere with the UNC’s political base?
I do not agree with Mr Winston Dookeran’s idea of unity, that everybody must join the COP. That is not unity, with the greatest respect to him; that is absorption of all political parties.
If you do not win the election, what would be your future relationship with the UNC?
I will remain with the UNC. I am not going to another political party. I will assist the membership in what way I can, but there comes a time in your life when, if you believe that all you are giving is not recognised by the party or individuals, or an organisation, there are other options.
And therefore at the end of my political term as an MP, I may have other options. I may decide to take a cruise; I may decide to take up a consultancy; I may decide to concentrate on my law practice. But I also have many other options.
There are many offers I had when I was not in office from 2002-2007. As an attorney general, I did very extensive international work. I did a lot of legal work in the Caribbean during that period.
So there are a lot of options. That is why I take the position that this internal elections is for the people. If the membership believes that I can change the party, I can win an election, I can put the party into government, with their help, (then) vote for me. If they believe that they don’t want me and I cannot be used to do that, (then) vote for Kamla or Panday.
