When the party closes ranks
By Dr. Winford James
March 28, 2004
An unfulfilled election promise. A more than apparent vendetta against his woman. Insensitivity to his relationship with his constituency. Too-harsh private words, maybe. All of the above? Other unknown factors? I am not entirely certain why Larry Achong resigned from the Manning cabinet. But I am certain enough that his resignation was preventable. All the outward signs scream that Mr. Manning mishandled his former minister's disquiet.
If we discount the PNM diehards, who cannot be convinced of the rightness of any action against the political health of the party (or Manning in this case), the public mostly saw a minister who was sympathetic towards the cause of striking ALNG workers in his constituency; whose woman was battling a strange, highhanded intention of the state to transfer her from San Fernando to Point Fortin; whose prime minister announced at a news conference that it would be economically irresponsible at this time to raise the minimum wage in the energy sector. Achong was clearly aggrieved but the public was getting no sense whatsoever that either the government or the party hierarchy was taking action to appease him or show him the error of his sympathy.
The media were speculating that Achong might resign, but did Manning seem to care that the resignation might happen? When it did happen (and in the tersest of language), he seemed caught by surprise, which suggests that he had not seen what the media and everybody else had. Or is it that, given the pre-eminence of both the party and the prime minister, he had not even entertained the thought that Achong could have taken that maverick course of action? After all, the prime minister had declared at the news conference that now was not the right time to raise the minimum wage and that, in any case, he did not want to prejudice the negotiations that were going on between the striking workers and ALNG. Further, hadn't he also determined to have satisfaction in the little matter of Marlene Coudray being dislodged from the San Fernando city corporation?
It seems to me that Manning mishandled the circumstances that led to the resignation. He did so through a combination of too much indifference and too much arrogance - except what I am interpreting as indifference and arrogance is really naivete or innocence or insouciance. In particular, he should not have chosen a news conference to announce his disagreement with Achong's attitude to the minimum wage. Rather, he should have taken the political risk of going down to Point Fortin and talking to the workers - man to men.
There is this cowardly, opportunistic tradition in Caribbean politics of promising the world on the campaign trail, meeting with this group and that to curry their favour, oozing optimism and idealism, and when government and power is won, and hard, realistic decisions have to be made, refuge is sought in the physical and metaphysical distance of information-dissemination devices such as the news conference. After elections, politicians think it is easier to run from their constituents than to face them manus manus. But it is bad politics, for afterwards they have to take action, before the next elections, to appease disgruntled, sometimes bitter feelings.
Sometimes, they have to close ranks, as the PNM is doing now, for their survival - but to their shame. Job-Davis and Hinds have thrust themselves forward from the backbenches. These are the same people who, on principle, refused so-called junior positions at the beginning of the latest Manning administration. Job-Davis, having been a 'full' minister, turned down the position of minister in a ministry because she saw it as a demotion; and Hinds refused to take a similar position. But now, with Achong gone in bitterness to the backbenches and with the dangerous prospect of three disgruntled people in a parliamentary majority of 20, they seem to have been prevailed upon to accept the same kind of positions that they stoutly rejected in the first place. And they are accepting as elected parliamentarians even as Anthony Roberts is appointed as 'full' minister in his capacity as appointed parliamentarian.
What has changed in their position? Is it their financial capability? Do they now need the money? For they are getting nothing more than they were offered at the beginning, unless there is something I am missing.
So I am left to conclude that they must be sacrificing a principled position (what is the principle, by the way?) for something far more important. What is it, if not the pre-eminence of the party (and the party leader)? There is a pressing, important legislative agenda to execute; all votes are needed; and three is a company. Achong may be a lost cause at this point, so we must make sure we keep Job-Davis and Hinds. The party must be held together; no more premature elections; no more UNC.
Look at what a prime ministerial mishandling can lead to. Resignation of an embittered minister. Exacerbation of the disaffection of a constituency. Ganging up of the government and the party against a parliamentarian. Loss of credibility all around, but especially for Job-Davis and Hinds.
Archives / Winford James Homepage / Previous Page
^^ Back to top
|