Trinidad's political crisis Bizarre Robinson-Panday Battle Rickey Singh Column Guyana Chronicle January 30, 2000 WHILE TRINIDAD and Tobago remains preoccupied with the political battle between President ANR Robinson and Prime Minister Basdeo Panday - a duel that coincides with the `carnival season' - the people of another CARICOM state, Dominica, will be trekking to polling divisions tomorrow to elect a new government. The incumbent United Workers Party of Prime Minister Edison James is expected to return to power, though it may not be by the landslide victory it has been confidently predicting for the 21-member parliament. With the election over and a new government installed in Roseau, the long overdue meeting of heads of government of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) - some of them not on good relations - is expected to take place during the coming month. In Trinidad and Tobago, the adage that there may be more in the mortar than the pestle seems quite relevant in the current political impasse over the Prime Minister's failure to get the President to carry out his constitutional function in revoking, as requested, the appointments of two government senators who had voted against the government's tourism development legislation. Whatever the real issue for the failure of the President and the Prime Minister to meet for more than four months for their customary weekly consultation meetings - prior to the explosion of the public verbal tussle we are now witnessing - Robinson seems to have been sparring for a public duel with the wily Panday. Robinson's political support had made it possible for him to serve as a Prime Minister, and now President. There will be varying perspectives on what has evolved into a war of attrition between the President and Prime Minister - the `Trinidad Guardian' has been headlining it as the "clash of two giants". It should not, however, conveniently be ignored, even by those who remain consistent in their opposition to Panday's leadership style, that it was Robinson, for all his reputation as a "constitutionalist" and passion for appropriate behaviour in the conduct of public business who, shockingly, first went public with his private correspondence to Panday. Two wrongs do not make right. This was one day after the Prime Minister had received the letter on the issue at the centre of the controversy - the President's delay in fulfilling his constitutional obligation to revoke the appointments of the two senators and signing new instruments of appointments to replace them. Panday's penchant for public sarcasm and tantrums - the media being among those affected - is well known. But neither his original letter to Robinson seeking the revocation of the appointments of the two senators, nor his initial comment to the media on January 21 about his expectation on the revocation issue, could have justifiably provoked the President to resort to the unprecedented action of going public with his letter to the Prime Minister. Deterioration The subsequent correspondence that followed between them, and, in particular, Robinson's vehement language of reprimand of Panday, as well as the reported impolite behaviour of the Prime Minister at the President's official residence last Thursday, have only further deteriorated their relations and has now placed the country on the brink of a constitutional crisis. With their separate statements more than implicitly accusing each other of lying - a most bizarres development, with all the trimmings of an undignified, fish market kind of politics in governance - it is difficult to see how there can now be a comfortable business as usual approach when Panday, who became Prime Minister with Robinson's support, and the President, do meet again once the current impasse is over. Of course, exactly when this constitutional storm cloud will blow over was not at all clear at the time of writing on Friday evening. It is likely that what constitutional experts like former President Sir Ellis Clarke fear may yet come to pass this week - the crisis. Or, hopefully, better judgement will prevail on all side -with less breast-beating about personal honour and integrity - and placing the nation's best interest first. Health Issue But it is difficult to imagine Panday offering the apology Robinson is demanding for a comment by the Prime Minister that reduction as of September of their customary once a week meeting had resulted from concern for the President's health. The 73-year-old Robinson has had heart surgery and treated for other ailments. But he said he was "blatantly" misrepresented by Panday on the question of the frequent meetings having "a deleterious affect" on his health. He insists on his physical fitness to carry out his official functions as head of state. Before the failure of an expected discussion between Robinson and Panday on Thursday and the President's subsequent sensational public accusation that Panday was guilty of an "absolute untruth" in alluding to the state of his health, former President Clarke had stated in a BBC interview: "If by Monday (tomorrow) the President refuses to act on the advice that the Prime Minister has tendered (on the revocation and appointment of senators), then there would be a constitutional crisis...We haven't reached that stage yet". But all the signs now point to such a crisis. Misunderstandings or disagreements between a head of state and a head of government is nothing unusual in any democratic state. It will be most surprising to learn that the relationship between previous Presidents and Prime Ministers of Trinidad and Tobago, for instance, has at all times been pleasant and correct, free of misunderstandings. I call no names. So why the country should now be placed in its current bizarre political show of open verbal wrangling by Robinson and Panday, a situation evidently exacerbated by the President with his press release statement, even though the problem may have originated by Panday's negative toward such frequent meetings. Political Sensitivity For all his own sophistry, Panday must know that he ought to have shown more sensitivity in seeking the revocation of the two senators in the manner he did. He is fully aware of the circumstances of the formal and informal arrangements for his United National Congress-led coalition government following the 1995 general election. Robinson's point about the problem involving more than the revocation is not without substance. But two wrongs do not make a right, and it is clearly not easy to ignore the grave implications of the President descending into the arena of politics by going public with his private correspondence to the Prime Minister. Given the nature of party politics, and moreso with fresh general election later this year, it is not surprising that even those who recognise the weakness in Robinson's position in the face-off with Panday, are reluctant to publicly express an opinion. One Trinidadian, whose experience in government and diplomacy makes him a good reference source, succinctly remarked to me: "You see, for some, it is not be a case of Robinson being right, but that anything Panday does is wrong". Or, as one colleague in the communications business in Port-of-Spain laughingly remarked: "It is a situation of the enemy of my enemy is my friend...so do not be surprised by the silence of those you think should at least point to Robinson's constitutional obligation". However strongly he feels about lack of proper consultation on the revocation of the appointments of the two Tobago senators, Robinson should know from his own long, and at times bitter experiences, that he cannot now, as President of the Republic, hope to achieve for Tobago what he could not either as Chairman of the Tobago House of Assembly or a one-term Prime Minister of the twin-island state. He would also be aware that on two separate previous occasions when an elected representative from Tobago and a senator from that sister isle voted against legislative measures of the Panday administration, they did the politically correct thing by resigning their respective positions, one from the cabinet, the latter from the senate. How and when will this distasteful public rift between the President and the Prime Minister end? We should soon find out.