Mr Manning made a remarkable reply to Keith Rowley’s challenge to him to tell Parliament why he was fired. He told Parliament that the latter’s behaviour since 1987 was unacceptable, but was more so after 1996 when he noticed an ’unbridled attitude that would do none of us any good.’ Manning complained that he had to live with Rowley’s bovine behaviour ’for 12 long years but took it in silence’. Manning told the Speaker that whenever Rowley could not have his way,’his method is to bully you, [and] that is what I fought against. We do not tolerate bullying in the secondary school system and we are not tolerating it in the Cabinet. I had to act the way I did to protect my government’. The question to be determined is why was the behaviour deemed unacceptable after 1996? Who was more peeved about the events of 1996 relating to the party’s internal elections? We recall Manning saying that Rowley’s bid for the leadership was the darkest challenge he had faced in his political career. It is also the case that Manning never forgave Rowley for challenging him for the leadership of the party after having been a party to the decision to call early general elections in 1995.
The Prime Minister’s reply however raises questions about how Westminster cabinets are managed. My investigations as to what happens depends on whether the prime minister feels politically or personally insecure . If the latter is the case, he might insist on formality or tight discipline in order to keep his ministers in line. One Jamaican minister told me that Michael Manley behaved as if he were Queen Victoria. He demanded deference. Some prime ministers start meetings with hands held in prayer. Others require ministers to stand and have the door closed when the meeting is scheduled to begin to give a certain kind of awe and aura to the meeting. In sum, the Cabinet became transformed into the throne room with the prime minister playing the role of the monarch to whom fell the responsibility of determining what the consensus was. Some cabinets have however been known to be spirited and rowdy.
Some prime ministerial heads lie uneasy and reshuffles are used as a way of reminding ministers that he is the boss. Management styles also vary depending on whether the cabinet is big or small, whether the party is united, whether dissident ministers have standing in the party or the country, or if the party or cabinet is ’owned’ by him and others are riding his shirt tails. A Prime Minister might think twice about firing a minister if the latter has a following in the cabinet or the party. If he is hubristic, theocratic, and given to ’hearing voices,’ or listening to prophets or prophetesses, his behaviour might be difficult to read.
Prime ministers are usually jealous of independent minded ministers who serve as a rallying points for dissidents in his cabinet. One suspects that both Rowley and Ken Valley were poles of reference and spokesmen for those who did not have the courage or confidence to speak on their own behalf. My inquiries have led me to believe that Rowley was articulate, well informed, argued and held his positions strongly, and was well regarded and respected by his cabinet colleagues. Not surprisingly, some would see him as a threat, not necessarily in terms of challenging for the leadership, but in terms of influence and legitimacy in the Cabinet and even the party. It is a well known fact that there were times during election campaigns when Rowley was not invited to speak on platforms. It was as if one were hiding the team’s best bowler in a 20-20 cricket match that was close!
Manning made the risible charge that Rowley was part of an anti-PNM anti-UNC clique headed by Lawrence Maharaj, a comment that led Rowley to accuse Manning (who no longer drinks spirits) of having drunk too much cheap brandy. Manning drew laughter when he noted that if he appeared to be drunk, he was ’drunk on God’. He also noted that while he was consumed by love, Rowley was wallowing in hate. Rowley’s retort was that the PM was psychoanalysing him when it was he who seemed to be in need of psychoanalytical evaluation.
Mr Manning also indicated that he had made a great political find! He had discovered that Ramjack-G and Rowley were not really targeting Calder Hart, but were scheming to bring down both the leader of the UNC as well as his government, as if doing so constituted some sort of political blasphemy. In the Westminster system, however, those outside are always scheming to get rid of the incubmbents . Manning nevertheless boasted that his government would neither fail nor fall, and that he will be around and in power for a long time to come.
Clearly, as we noted in our analysis in last Sunday’s Express, the PNM is split, and both teams are appealing to the party’s founding principles. While the parliamentary arm seems to be behind Manning, the situation in the country is very different. In a survey which I conducted last November, only 7 percent felt Rowley should form a new party, 5 percent felt he should retire from politics altogether, 11 percent felt he should leave the PNM while 60 per cent he should stay in the party and challenge Manning. One suspects that the number wanting him to challenge Manning would now be higher, and that the percentage wanting him to stay and fight might well be higher if the preferences of Afro Trinidadians alone were surveyed. Recent mini polls conducted by Market Facts and Opinion give the Prime Minister a mere 14 per cent approval rating, the same as that given to the Police Service. This is an astonishing free fall! Mr Enill’s remarks about the need for the PNM to go back to the people indicates that the party knows it is in deep trouble.
There has been no talk about expelling Dr Rowley from the PNM for dissident behaviour as there was in respect of the UNC, and the Prime Minister went out of his way to insist that Mr Rowley is still a member of the PNM and the party’s representative for Diego Martin West. It may be that he does not want to precipitate an open breach at this time which could go further than he would prefer, and that he prefers to wait for an appropriate opportunity to complete what he began.
In the meantime, one could expect Dr Rowley would either emerge stronger if Uff’s report vindicates his allegations or, if the reverse is the case as seems unlikely, he would retire as an MP and a parliamentary representative. One should however not be surprised if Rowley continues to speak out openly on key policy issues as he did in the Budget, parts of which he criticised. One would also expect Mr Manning to continue his ’campaign’ to blunt Mr Rowley’s thrust by projecting him as a bully consumed by hate, someone who is out of control and therefore unsuitable for high political office.
To be continued:
The UDecott election: Round 3
