Paolo Kernahan
There's a reason the PNM is often pejoratively described as a masonic lodge - secret handshakes, special favours for members, bizarre rituals, etc. We were reminded of this as the party worked frantically to suture fissures the Rowley-led coronation of Stuart Young as PM-designate opened up.
Rebel MPs who demurred on signing a document affirming their rubber stamp on Rowley's hand-reared successor quickly and inexplicably fell into line. Suddenly, all was right in the 'venerable' institution. Unity was restored and in a poorly worded statement, Young triumphantly threatened, 'The country will have to face team PNM.'
That whiplash about-face raises questions.
What deals were made to grease this transition, allowing Rowley easy egress and the 'tong boy's' effortless ingress into an institution that prides itself on democratic principles and procedures? What assurances were given to get opposing voices onside? What secret handshakes?
Much is made of the fact that the PNM doesn't air its dirty laundry in public. If there's infighting, it's kept quiet - like a village cock fight. This is sold and enthusiastically purchased as an admirable quality.
As party jefes hustled into and out of Balisier mansion last week nearly all MPs and assorted members were stuck on mute. They were skinnin' and grinnin' as they evaded encamped reporters.
'I would prefer to say nothing!' Why even say that then? What many ordinary citizens aren't seeing beyond these theatrics is this: a political party built on secrecy is a government of secrecy.
What devout supporters see as their party's greatest strength is, in fact, the country's greatest weakness - given that the PNM is the default government of TT. When we emerged from colonialism into nationhood, the PNM was the software that came with the new country.
Here's a little exercise; choose the option you think is best for you and your family.
A) Members of a political party slavishly agree with all edicts of the leader despite grave concerns.
B) Members of a political party stand up and object to leadership decisions they believe are ill-advised or in the worst interest of the nation.
Folks who choose option A are probably untroubled by this administration's continued support of a minister under whom crime rose steadily, achieving an ignominious record at the end of 2024. Notwithstanding this individual's glaring unsuitability for the role into which he's been thrust, party unity on his tenure trumps what's in the people's best interest. These are the stakes.
Party disagreement over Young's ascension to be seated at the right hand of the father, eventually taking the throne himself is healthy. Outliers will always be better than outright liars. Folks like Robert Le Hunte and Jennifer Baptiste-Primus should be applauded for going up against the party machinery publicly.
Openly questioning the way Rowley triggered his retirement and bequeathed the role to Young was a bold move. They did so knowing they courted political exile and p
