Twenty years ago, the "one love" coalition called the National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR) collapsed in spectacular fashion. The People's Partnership coalition is a demographic and ideological descendant of that phenomenon and, inevitably, comparisons will be made between the two experiences. While a majority of the population remains broadly satisfied with the Prime Minister and the People's Partnership, one gets the distinct impression that there is subdued dissatisfaction with what has emerged so far in terms of the governance style of the coalition.

My fellow columnist, Martin Daly, well captured the prevailing mood when he wrote in last Sunday's Express that "I continue to be deeply disturbed by the governance style of some of her ministers and others which will poison her fresh air. All their political extempo is unseemly and is likely to cause confusion. Many readers agree that Kamla must rein in these runaway horses. The Government must speak with one voice on policy matters."

Writing in another newspaper, veteran analyst, Percy Cezair, opined that" the people of T&T look to the present government for sober and intelligent leadership.

Unfortunately, there is a creeping tendency to publicly pronounce individual beliefs and intentions as government policy." Senator Helen Drayton also spoke for many when she urged the Government to take a time out to think through what it is doing and how.

Notwithstanding claims by the People's Partnership leadership that all is well, there are whispered rumblings and grumblings. This was, however, to be expected. Transitions are never costless, especially when regime change is envisaged. There are, however, complaints that this one is prolonged and lacking in coherence. Part of the problem is that most of the Cabinet members have little or no administrative experience and know nothing about how to be a minister.

The ministerial experience is a new and heady one. Every minister wants to shine and strut his/her stuff. Some are naturally garrulous and seem surprised that they are where they are; others are just naïve about what it takes to govern a country such as ours, which is not easily disciplined. Few also know anything about the folkways of the public service.

We, however, need to remind ourselves that the People's Partnership is a coalition, and that coalitional politics differs fundamentally from politics in which there are unitary parties led by maximum leaders. Manning was right when he characterised coalitions as being potentially unstable.

The problem of achieving the contradictory ideals of organisational and policy coherence and diversity is a difficult one, and success or failure depends on many things. It depends in part on the structure and the balance of power within the parties and the coalition and the temperament and maturity of the leadership.

Coalitions differ too depending on whether they yoke together a dominant and a smaller party such as the United National Congress (UNC) and the Congress of the People (COP), or whether they consist of parties that are relatively equal in political strength.

Coalitional style and coherence is also a by-product of political history, political culture, constitutional arrangements, conventions, and the ideologies of the main players. Political necessity also helps to determine outcomes. Generally speaking, Westminster parliaments are more disciplined than those which obtain in consociational systems such as we have in Europe. Westminster MPs who make a habit of being free spirits can be summoned and "punished" if they persist in embarrassing the government.

They are, however, generally allowed free speech and a free vote on conscience issues such as the death penalty and abortion. No one has to walk the talk or lose a limb. On other matters, they are expected to toe the line, especially if the government does not have a comfortable majority. One recalls UK Prime Minister, Harold McMillan, telling MPs to "revolt by all means, but only on one issue at a time. To do more is to confuse the Whips." Continental European parties, on the other hand, tend to tolerate greater openness.

Trinidad and Tobago has had some experience with coalitional politics, and we have discussed these attempts in previous columns. One of the questions that generate controversy is how should MPs and cabinet ministers position themselves in relation to party leadership and controversial policy issues. This issue was heatedly discussed following the victory of the NAR in 1986. How were NAR parliamentarians to behave? Were they all to sing songs from the same page of the same hymn book to the same tune? Was each minister, regardless of rank, free to announce his idiosyncratic preferences to the public before his or her colleagues had deliberated on the matter in Cabinet or one of its committees?

What happens when there are open clashes of opinion on critical policy issues? What then constitutes Government policy? Should the matter depend on whether or not there was a manifesto commitment on the matter or a campaign pledge? What happens when lips, when read, say different things than they once said?

These matters were heatedly ventilated in 1987-88. In the early years of the NAR administration, Panday boasted that "the Westminster system as practised in Trinidad and Tobago was seriously questioned for the first time since Independence... We questioned the style of leadership, the meaning and significance of cabinet respon Robinson of wanting to be a maximum leader and of seeking to listen to voices other than those of his co-leaders.

Robinson did not, however, agree that he was the source of the problem, and accused Panday and his supporters of being terrorists with a dark agenda. "When they cannot dictate to and control the Cabinet, they seek to destroy the Cabinet. And when they cannot control the executive of the party, they seek to destroy the executive. The issue is whether we will continue as a free and democratic people governed by the Constitution and principles of behaviour or whether we must subject ourselves to intimidation and terrorism by individuals who know no law and no principles."

Many others voiced their frustration with what was happening to the "one love" dream. Lloyd Best described the NAR as a "confidence trick", a "public relations stunt", and a "forced ripe product which was wholly incapable of surviving or enduring once it was faced with the responsibilities of office". Best felt that the NAR was rendered impotent largely because of the "means by which it got into office".

Failure was due to the fact that the new party had not taken the time to meet collegially and come to some entente about the many serious policy options that faced the country before the elections. Given this neglect, the leaders could be counted upon to "tug and pull in different directions, and not necessarily out of wilfulness malice or cursedness."

When the People's Partnership meets in mid August to assess its performance thus far, it needs to remind itself about what happened to the NAR coalition which came crashing down in the attempted Muslimeen coup of July 1990. Coalitions are difficult things to manage, and it will take more than Kamla's charm and her proffered magnetic hand to keep passionate, ambitious and opinionated men and women in harness over the next few years.

To paraphrase a well worn cliché, "those who do not learn from history's mistakes are condemned to repeat them."