Death of a Patriot

Nov 28, 2010 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

I first got to know Winston Murray after I joined him on the opposition benches following the 2001 elections. There were the Parliamentary sessions where – as has been so widely acknowledged – his presentations from the floor were invariably of the highest professional order. He was always prepared. Rising to speak with his hand-written notes in his left hand, he would eloquently, incisively and cogently make his contribution to whatever debate was at hand.
It was a mark of the respect to which he was held by those on the government benches that whenever he spoke, he received a most respectful hearing. It was not that he spared the blushes of the government benches, but he spoke with such consummate expertise and obvious sincerity that I guess it was hard for them to take umbrage spitefully. The obligatory ragging of (and riposte by) him was invariably good natured. I never heard him descend into the crude vitriol that characterised some outbursts. He was a model to be emulated by a rookie like me.
But it was in the parliamentary committees in which we both were members – the Economic Services Committee and the Parliamentary Management Committee – that I could watch him in action, up close. He always took positive, informed and national positions which, I believe, helped to shape the culture of these fledgling institutions that were intended to extend democratic governance in our country. It was the collegial, productive atmosphere of the committees more than anything else that convinced me that the public grandstanding culture of the Parliamentary debates – where one is expected to be rabidly partisan – could take a leaf from Winston Murray’s book if we are ever to take this country forward.
I was also to participate in numerous meetings of the joint parliamentary parties, between 2004 and 2006, where Murray was present. These were much more informal, permitting, I thought, one to observe cracks in the public façades that politicians and other of their ilk are wont to erect. Murray, however, was always the same – polite, humble, restrained – even as he offered his perceptive comments when he felt it was appropriate. On occasion, I have heard him differ from the position of his party leader, Mr Robert Corbin, but it was never with the simmering reserve of some who, it was later revealed, were challenging the latter for the leadership of the PNC. He referred to Corbin as “Chief”.
It was therefore with some surprise that I read of his challenge to Mr Corbin for the leadership of the party in late 2009. After my few years in politics, I had concluded that those who sought the rungs of power evidently had to seize it not only by overweening ambition and a thick skin, but also a willingness to lie with alarming regularity or, if not that, at least to speak to people evasively and unctuously. Precisely the kind of person, if one thinks about it, one should quarantine from any leadership position. I didn’t read Mr Murray to be such a character.
But maybe I should not have been surprised at all. In September of 2008, Mr Murray, as Chairman of the PNC and spokesperson on the subject matter, while performing the function of leader in the absence of Robert Corbin had supported President Jagdeo’s stance in opposing the EPA being negotiated with the EU. Mr Corbin and the PNC later repudiated Mr Murray’s patriotic position – which has subsequently been vindicated – and the latter resigned as Chairman in January 2009. His resignation, he declared was a “principled objection” to the “abandonment” by the PNC of his decision.
It was typical of the man, however, that he remained with his party to continue his struggle from within rather than “cussing out” from outside. It would appear that he was then persuaded by a large swathe of PNC’s leaders and rank and file to seek the leadership of the Party later that year. And it was typical also that when, after a host of confusion during the election – which Dr Van West Charles later dubbed “fraudulent” – Murray said, “Yes, I am prepared to accept the results. Because the margin is so wide, that even if there were – as I believe there were – flaws in the process and irregularities in the procedures, it is clear that Mr Corbin would have won.”
Just before his untimely passing, he had declared his candidacy to be the PNC’s presidential candidate, after Corbin indicated his non-availability for the position. Change had been engendered – incrementally but peacefully.
We are entering a critical period of our country’s history – the general elections of 2011. We have talked a lot about the need for us to create institutions that could move us in the direction of a more just and prosperous society. But institutions are just dry rules about values that in the end can only be given life by the persons that occupy the organisations; that are their human face. Especially for a young country such as ours, still building its traditions and folkways, if well-intended institutions such as governments are to ever fulfil their promise, we need more individuals like Winston Murray to be drafted as leaders. We need more patriots.
May his soul rest in peace.

---

---