?This is the season of the screening of candidates by political parties during which the general will of the constituency executive is pitted against the power exercised by political leaders and party oligarchies as to who will best represent the interests of the parties at the polls and thereafter.
In the majority of the instances, the constituency executive has its way and its candidate of choice is selected after a short process of answering questions (which hardly amounts to a thorough probing) posed by the screening committee, made up of the party hierarchy, headed by the political leader. In such instances it is really a matter of confirming someone who has been agreed to by all before hand. It is however when the political leadership, read political leader, has a problem with the proposed candidate–for one reason or the other, sometimes personal, or has a favourite he/she wants to install, most of the times in a "safe" seat–that the conflict arises. From Williams to Manning, and now from Panday to Persad-Bissessar, the conflict has arisen and will arise. As is always touted, the constitutions of the parties are the final arbiters. In all parties, the constitution gives the political leader the right to have the final say. Mr Panday always exercised that authority ruthlessly, not allowing for dissent to prevent him from making his own selection. So too has Mr Manning held forth, squaring off against constituency executives and refusing to budge from his position of choice.
As could be expected in the quest for power by the parties, the executives usually eventually fall in line and allow their leaders the last word. In the celebrated incident of this type, Dr Williams, in the face of the potential for open internal conflict on the eve of the 1976 election, backed down and allowed those he deemed "millstones around my neck" to be candidates. He however relegated the five to the backbenches having won a handsome electoral victory. From the reports so far, Mr Manning must have adopted a similar strategy and temporary truce in the case of Dr Keith Rowley: he clearly understands the value of Rowley on the campaign platform. Perhaps of even greater significance, the Prime Minister knows that going against the overwhelming choice of the Diego Martin West constituency could trigger the type of internal convulsions from which he and the PNM would not be able to emerge successfully.
But also going on reports so far available, Mr Manning believes he and the party will not encounter the same level of conflict if he ignores the apparent popular choice of the Arima constituency in the instance of Pennelope Beckles and makes his own selection, Laurel Lezama. With the UNC/COP screening not being as advanced as the PNM, such head-on conflicts have not arisen just yet. But they are sure to with the likes of Kelvin Ramnath, Ramesh Maharaj and others from the dissident team seeking to get the nod from the UNC's screening committee, assuming they are able to get constituency support. And this does not even begin to consider the conflicts likely over the COP's attempt to get equity in the distribution of constituencies.
One major difficulty with the process of the constitutions of the parties is that it does not allow for intelligent and rational discussion between the constituency executives and the political leadership, the former having to submit to the desires of the latter without discourse. The American system is far more democratic as candidate selection is the preserve of the electors in primaries and this is from presidential through congressional and senatorial nominees; people have the say and they do so in vigorous campaigns. Whether we go that route or not, the present arrangement merely entrenches the system of total control by one individual.