Mickela, Kamla and the ghosts of 2010

Mickela Panday's latest criticism of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar raises a question that goes beyond the immediate political dispute: are we debating the politics of today, or are some of us still fighting the battles of yesterday? Mickela is entirely entitled to criticise the Prime Minister. In a democracy, those who govern must be held accountable. But her criticism of Persad-Bissessar cannot be examined honestly without acknowledging the political history between the Panday and Persad-­Bissessar camps. Mickela is the daughter of Basdeo Panday, founder of the United National Congress (UNC) and a former prime minister. In 2010, Persad-Bissessar defeated Basdeo Panday for the leadership of the UNC. Mickela was subsequently removed as the party's candidate for Oropouche West, a decision over which she publicly expressed disappointment. That was more than an ordinary change of political leadership. It marked a dramatic shift in the history of the UNC: the political era of Basdeo Panday had given way to the leadership of Persad-Bissessar. That history matters today. Over the years, Mickela has continued to be one of Persad-Bissessar's outspoken critics. She has attacked the government's economic policies, accused it of misleading voters and, in 2025, warned that its conduct could signal a creeping dictatorship. Now she accuses the Prime Minister of dividing the country. Perhaps her criticism is justified. If so, it should be examined on its merits. The same principle of scrutiny must however apply to everyone. Is Mickela's continuing opposition to Persad-Bissessar entirely about the policies and conduct of the present Government, or has some of it also been shaped by the political rupture of 2010 and the subsequent displacement of the Panday political legacy within the UNC? That is not an accusation. It is a legitimate question. We should also be careful about the language of political division. Trinidad and Tobago has suffered for decades from politicians and political supporters reducing national issues to party loyalties, personalities and historical grievances. If we genuinely want less division, then everyone must be willing to examine their own contribution to the political culture they condemn in others. Basdeo Panday's place in our political history should be judged on his record. Persad-Bissessar should be judged on hers. Mickela should likewise be judged on her own political record and the ideas she brings to the national debate. The public does not need another gene­ration of politicians fighting over the political wounds of the past. We need leaders prepared to confront the problems of the present. So if Mickela believes Persad-Bissessar is dividing T&T, let us examine the evidence and have that debate. But perhaps we should also ask whether, 16 years after the political upheaval of 2010, we are still allowing old political wounds to shape today's arguments. T&T deserves accountability from every political voice, including those who demand it from others. Tony Mark Ramjewan Maraval