THE EDITOR: The general election produced less of a democratic mandate and more a statement of silent discontent. Voter turnout plunged from 67 per cent in 2015 to a stark 54 per cent this year, indicative of an electorate speaking less with ballots and more with absence.
In our Westminster-style system, this is a form of protest that is both potent and politically dangerous.
Using approximate figures, the PNM saw its vote count collapse from 378,000 in 2015 to 220,000 in 2025 – a loss of 158,000 votes. The UNC, by contrast, increased its share from 290,000 to 334,000 – a modest rise of 44,000.
These facts tell a story more about the psychology and culture of political participation in our country than any surge of support for either side. The results do not reveal any seismic shift in political allegiance.
Instead, it is indicative of a crystallization of partisan stability regarding the UNC, and conditional loyalty for the PNM. The UNC has, in essence, hardened into a political bloc with a relatively fixed base that votes for the party regardless of broader national currents.
Its strongholds maintained voter-engagement levels close to and above the national average.
Conversely, the PNM base appears increasingly contingent – it mobilises only under conditions of inspiration or confidence – and retreats when disillusioned. They don't cross the floor, they just stay home. Constituencies won by the PNM exhibited a broader range of turnout percentages with some falling below 40 per cent.
What accounted for this mass abstention by traditional PNM voters in 2025?
A plethora of factors ranging from crime to the economy can be explored, but at the heart of it is leadership selection. When Dr Rowley handpicked Stuart Young to carry the party’s leadership mantle – a person widely perceived as an extension of the era and elite politics of proximity, privilege, and insularity – he bypassed democratic contestation, the core ethos of representational politics, and the one man, one vote system which was changed in the party's constitution under his leadership.
It was a move that insulted a politically conscious base beyond its membership.
The new Opposition Leader Penelope Beckles, by contrast, was always the natural successor by pedigree, principle and position. A veteran of the party with decades of experience, she held multiple ministerial portfolios with discipline and competence, served with distinction as TT's ambassador to the UN, and remained symbolically grounded in the party’s traditional ethos of meritocratic ascent.
Her relative independence from the inner circle of Rowley’s governance over his ten years in office gave her a unique position: she could have been seen as real change, not cosmetic continuity.
Had Beckles been offered the opportunity to compete fairly and had she been embraced as the future of the party, the PNM might still not have won the election, but they almost certainly would have mitigated the disenchantment that kept close to 160,000 of their voters home.
In a politica
