I see that Jack Warner's role in the UNC has become a hot topic. This has long been coming, for a man like Warner will always generate bitterness in those whose demise he is perceived to have orchestrated. A former mayor seems unforgiving as much as a former leader is, not to mention the aggrieved in the party who have been knocked out or displaced by the formidable presence of Warner.
But what has been their gall and difficult to swallow has been the people's reprieve, for how much longer could supporters in the UNC, indeed the nation as a whole, stomach the decadent longevity of the old order? Many in the UNC tried and failed but Jack was at the forefront in paving the way for change, giving this nation something to hope for, and in this sense he is a true revolutionary.
Let's face it, without Jack this country would have never had Kamla and the present "Kamlamania," for even as Kamla has her own special appeal, it was Jack together with Ramesh who provided the stimulation for change within the UNC and her overwhelming victory over the old icon was part of that process.
And Jack has his other attributes. Just say the word "help"–for his constituents, for scholarships, for a badly needed house, for displaced Haitians, for community football, you name it–and Jack would be there! So those of you who would be suspicious about Jack, judge the man by the facts and do not shape him out of your own bitterness. He may have his faults but who doesn't? Let Kamla and the Jack flow and stop driving a wedge between them, for what better combination can you have for a politics divided by race?
Dr Errol Benjamin
Via e-mail