By Bukka Rennie
Do we see any correlation in the logic underlying the two major eventualities that has this time around "crystallised" our ongoing crisis in governance? Recall the developments...
Panday, in typical "one-manism" fashion, orders his Party's internal election to be put on hold until he returns from London. On his return, he instructs the membership to feel free to vote into office a party executive of their choice. He signals to the faithful that all and sundry should vote according to conscience. He claims he shall not intervene nor attempt to influence their choice in any way.
The slates line up. Each lay claim to greater love for, and loyalty to, the Maximum Leader, the most loving and considerate helmsman of them all. The Party faithful, with all good intention, vote into office an Executive and immediately all hell breaks loose.
Panday reneges on his position of impartiality and virtually scuttles his Party's unity and triggers the collapse of his own Government with the dismissal/departure of three UNC ministers, after only a mere nine months in office.
|NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material
from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |