JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Wednesday, February 26, 2025

Manning–A creature of Dr Williams' PNM

by

20100601

?Can the hi­er­ar­chy of the Peo­ple's Na­tion­al Move­ment, com­pris­ing the Gen­er­al Coun­cil, the Screen­ing Com­mit­tee, and the cab­i­net be con­sid­ered com­plete­ly free of the re­spon­si­bil­i­ty of al­low­ing Man­ning to pur­sue his im­pe­r­i­al de­signs?

As in­di­cat­ed last week, Man­ning's de­cline and his even­tu­al falling on his sword were en­tire­ly of his own mak­ing, so drunk had he be­come with his suc­cess at dom­i­nat­ing all around him, in­clud­ing the na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty and poli­ty. How­ev­er, the le­gions of mice of men and women (to ad­just Stein­beck) who sur­round­ed Man­ning in the par­ty, cab­i­net and gov­ern­ment–those hold­ing on be­cause it was the best thing that ever hap­pened to them, those who were pre­pared to tol­er­ate any­thing once they were close enough to glow in the re­flect­ed glo­ry of the em­per­or–fed Man­ning's great ego and gave him a leg-up to the plat­form he even­tu­al­ly as­cend­ed. But Man­ning did not fall out of the sky, a freak of na­ture; he is very much a crea­ture of the par­ty and po­lit­i­cal cul­ture cre­at­ed by Dr Er­ic Williams. Williams de­ter­mined that the PNM would not fol­low the lib­er­al democ­ra­cy mod­el of the USA, open for con­test with­in; but rather it would be a par­ty more like the British par­ties in the West­min­ster sys­tem of tight con­trols on ex­pres­sion of dis­af­fec­tion and con­tention with leader and or­gans of the par­ty.

For decades PNM mem­bers have ex­tolled the virtues of the par­ty be­ing a lodge, a cult in which no one speaks out against de­ci­sions of the oli­garchy, of be­ing an or­gan­i­sa­tion in which the word and ac­tions of the leader are sacro­sanct. It is the same think­ing which fash­ioned the na­tion­al con­sti­tu­tion and the po­lit­i­cal cul­ture, all pred­i­cat­ed on a dom­i­nant "strong­man" and a sub­ject oli­garchy in tow to rule the mass­es. Yes­ter­day it was Man­ning, and frankly it could have been any­one, to­mor­row it could be some­one else. To avoid re­turn­ing to the dic­ta­tor­ship, the pop­u­la­tion will have to force change. His­to­ry has demon­strat­ed that change will not be ini­ti­at­ed by a strong­man wait­ing in the wings or pop­u­lar woman and pop­ulist move­ment now on stage: trans­for­ma­tion and ref­or­ma­tion must be de­lib­er­ate­ly forced in­to ex­is­tence; it will not be ced­ed by those at the cen­tre. When Man­ning start­ed to un­der­mine po­lit­i­cal fig­ures in­side the par­ty, Mitchell, Seep­aul, Maraj, Beck­les, Ed­die Hart, Hinds, Val­ley and Row­ley, no one said a word. They were all quite will­ing to cede the un­chal­lenged lead to the po­lit­i­cal leader as such a supine pos­ture al­lowed them to re­main in the spot­light.

When he used so ob­vi­ous­ly fal­si­fied ra­tio­nale to elim­i­nate se­nior MPs who could pro­vide chal­lenge, self-preser­va­tion was the goal of those who made it through the rain; they kept qui­et. When he en­gaged in reck­less, un­pro­duc­tive and gross­ly in­ef­fi­cient ex­pen­di­ture of bil­lions of dol­lars to achieve his "over-vault­ing am­bi­tions," on­ly Row­ley dared raise an ob­jec­tion in pub­lic. Oth­ers pre­ferred to buy in­to the "wa­jang be­hav­iour" sto­ry. When Man­ning in­def­i­nite­ly post­poned lo­cal elec­tions, they all hid un­der the con­sti­tu­tion­al re­frain that call­ing elec­tions was the pre­rog­a­tive of the Prime Min­is­ter. In­deed, they said it with such rev­er­ence, want­i­ng to please the em­per­or and to se­cure their own po­si­tions. When he forced-out Brigid An­nisette-George on a con­coct­ed sto­ry about her hav­ing in­ter­ests which could ex­pose her, they kept silent. When the Prime Min­is­ter re­fused to re­place a min­is­ter for so-ob­vi­ous con­flict-of-in­ter­est deal­ing, they all stood by and in­deed went in­to bat­tle against the na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty for ma­lign­ing the min­is­ter and gov­ern­ment. They all stood like lambs bleat­ing in the fields when Man­ning scut­tled a par­lia­men­tary sit­ting to go to Wood­ford Square to in­sti­gate the mass­es against one of their own and the op­po­si­tion in vi­o­la­tion of the sanc­ti­ty of Par­lia­ment.

When Man­ning pa­rad­ed his con­sti­tu­tion­al re­form agen­da to make him­self ex­ec­u­tive pres­i­dent be­yond the reach of the Par­lia­ment, the law and the elec­torate, their voic­es were raised in unit­ed sup­port for the pro­pos­als. When large seg­ments of the pop­u­la­tion ar­tic­u­lat­ed con­cerns about al­leged cor­rupt ac­tiv­i­ties en­gaged in by Hart and Ude­cott, they all kept qui­et when an up­start min­is­ter had the temer­i­ty to tell the na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty how shame it should feel about rais­ing its col­lec­tive voice to pro­tect the na­tion­al pat­ri­mo­ny. But be­yond the in­di­vid­u­als, there must be an ex­am­i­na­tion of the par­ty, its con­sti­tu­tion, the na­tion­al con­sti­tu­tion and the po­lit­i­cal cul­ture to dis­cern how they all con­tributed to the emer­gence of yet an­oth­er Caribbean dic­ta­tor in the mould of Tru­jil­lo and Du­va­lier. Af­ter 54 years of ex­is­tence, 43 of those years in gov­ern­ment, the PNM amounts to no more than an elec­toral ma­chine to put a leader and his oli­garchy in gov­ern­ment. Its in­sti­tu­tions are pa­per thin and open to dom­i­na­tion by a po­lit­i­cal leader who is giv­en to­tal pow­er to do as he pleas­es; ig­nore the emp­ty rhetoric about elab­o­rate process­es of what par­ty groups do right up to the Gen­er­al Coun­cil and con­ven­tion. The re­al­i­ty be­ing that the process­es are com­plete­ly con­trolled by the po­lit­i­cal leader and his oli­garchy. Where is the par­ty news­pa­per start­ed by CLR James? Where is the par­ty school for ed­u­ca­tion and en­light­en­ment? What of a dis­po­si­tion to en­ter­prise and eco­nom­ic de­vel­op­ment–a cred­it union, a co-op­er­a­tive per­haps? Where is the mod­ern par­ty head­quar­ters and phys­i­cal de­vel­op­ment on a sub­stan­tial prop­er­ty held for decades?

In­stead, the par­ty ex­ists on the ba­sis of be­ing in gov­ern­ment to dis­trib­ute state re­sources to mem­bers: those who de­pend on so­cial wel­fare, and the so­cial and eco­nom­ic class that gets con­tracts and gov­ern­ment projects. On the eve of de­clar­ing an elec­tion, the par­ty and gov­ern­ment lead­er­ship go cap-in-hand to the Syr­i­an-Lebanese busi­ness com­mu­ni­ty for cam­paign fi­nanc­ing, so in­ef­fec­tive it has been at sus­tain­ing it­self; so dis­posed is it to al­low­ing gov­ern­ment to be cap­tive to groups who are will­ing to pur­chase in­flu­ence. For its 54 years of ex­is­tence, the PNM has not been able to be­come a true na­tion­al move­ment in­clu­sive of the eth­nic, re­li­gious and so­cial class groups of this plur­al so­ci­ety. That is the kind of trans­for­ma­tion away from cen­tralised and dic­ta­to­r­i­al rule to­wards a mod­ern and in­de­pen­dent struc­ture that has to be­come the re­spon­si­bil­i­ty of those who would take over the PNM.

There are many lessons here for the Peo­ple's Part­ner­ship and its lead­er­ship.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored