Seemingly intent on providing additional examples to support the contention of last week's column that the major failing of the People's Partnership has to do with its inability to cohere as a party of differing persuasions and interests, indeed that fragmentation and conflict are happening even amongst members of the United National Congress, there was the internal bleeding over the farmers, and the intra-party conflict associated with the board of Caribbean Airlines. Witness, for instance, the differing positions of Food Production Minister Vasant Bharath and Housing Minister Roodal Moonilal over the bulldozing of farmers' crops in two separate parts of the country. The Housing Minister insisted that the farmers have to relocate and make way for housing, and said that without apology. The Food Production Minister is "standing firm" with the farmers who say this is arable farm land which has been cultivated for decades and there is where they will stay. Immediately the bulldozing took place, Labour Minister Errol McLeod apologised to the farmers. He was soon to be followed by a statement from the Movement for Social Justice condemning the action in the strongest possible terms. It was a position that had to be taken as Fitun had walked with empty pots with the said farmers' association when the PNM government was unsympathetic to their cause.
Then the major contradiction: Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar sending the message back from Brazil that all destruction of the farmers' crops must cease. Was the Prime Minister unaware, not informed that this would take place? Or was the HDC acting on its own? To the last question, the straight-talking HDC CEO, Jearlean John, made it clear that she was carrying out government policy. Since his return from London, Housing Minister Moonilal has not contradicted John and the HDC, nor has he apologised. It would therefore be legitimate to assume that the ministry was very much in sync with the bulldozing. In fact there are those who have said that the rooting-out of the farmers' crops was timed to take place when he, the minister, was out of the country; an attempt to shield him of the responsibility. At minimum and without any information on the above, it must be safe to conclude that the ministry and the HDC had it as a plan to clear the land of agricultural "squatters," making way in the process for homes. Given the pictures and stories in the weekend newspapers, generated by the HDC, the attempt is to argue that the large majority of potential home owners outweigh the four farmers, as reported, displaced. Of course this argument does not take into consideration the thousands of people fed by agricultural production; but this column is not engaging that argument at this time, just making a note along the way.
Instead the focus is on the statements from the ministry and the HDC that they had a plan and programme to construct homes in areas where the farmers have been on the land for years. In such circumstances it must have been understood that there would be conflict. Aware of such a reality, did the ministry seek to engage in consultation with the Food Production Minister and the farmers (families which gave support to and were supported by the UNC when the party was in opposition) before this strike on their crops? In a cohesive party and government that would seem to have been a necessity.
Was the Prime Minister not informed beforehand of this con-flict and the need for resolution of the problem? The chances of striking a deal with the farmers would certainly have been higher if consultation had replaced destruction. There is though the cynical suggestion that maybe the plan was/ is to create this conflictual situation and then allow Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar to sail into the situation and provide a solution, heroine-like, to the farmers with the national audience viewing it in front of television sets and reading of it in the newspapers. Lecturer in politics at the St. Augustine campus in the 1970s Luis Bobb, used to define politics "as the art of the possible." We should therefore put nothing beyond politicians. However, if that is the game, it is a dangerous one. These types of public conflicts over diametrically opposed government policies and actions erode the credibility and currency of the government in power.
Realistically, you would have to say the conflict is because of the fault lines among and even within the parties. The second conflict of last week resulted in senior minister and at times acting prime minister, Jack Warner, not disguising the contempt and disgust he has for his fellow senior minister and at times acting prime minister, Winston Dookeran, even when the latter is acting. Warner evinced those feelings when asked about Dookeran's letter to the Prime Minister on the CAL board. The question to ask of Dookeran is whether he harboured those views on the CAL board appointees (perhaps other boards as well) when they were selected months ago? Or did he voice his views then but was drowned out by other interests and political groups around the table? None-theless, does he not believe in collective responsibility of the Cabinet after the fact? Maybe he would say that he was not responsible for leaking the document to the press as all he wanted to do is to quietly raise the issue with the Prime Minister. Along the same fault line, this one communication, was the haphazard handling of Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar's trip to Brazil. Why did it have to come to the information on the full cost of the trip leaking out to the media? Similarly, it seems a million times more of an effective strategy for the Government to have had unveiled a communication programme on the nature and value of the Prime Minister's trips abroad and what the Cabinet is attempting to achieve by the meetings in foreign capitals.
To have to come from behind with a damage control effort to make comparisons between Manning's trips and those now being engaged by Persad-Bissessar is overly defensive and does not communicate the value of travel. The point remains: Fragmentation and incoherence in government abound.