BULLYING AND THE PRIME MINISTER

IF a leader sets the moral tone of a nation, what is the ethical standard of Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley?

The issue is ripe once again in light of the outrage over the suicide death of a teenage student after sustained bullying and aggression against others in the school system.

The faint response by the Rowley Government has also provoked the ire of a nation that has witnessed the coercion of students in an increasingly hostile and violent society.

Rowley has repeatedly faced public criticism of using his power to intimidate critics through belligerent language.

When, for example, the Prime Minister received an honorary doctorate from an international university last year, the outspoken Gary Aboud challenged his personal carriage.

“How he refers to people, and the way, the tone of voice, and the actual choice of words,” Aboud said.

“Several things we think unbecoming of our leadership and very frightening for the state of the nation…”

Aboud termed Rowley “the perfect example of a bully … arrogant, offensive… the way he speaks to the media…”

Long before that portrayal, Patrick Manning, who introduced Rowley to public affairs, had a similar depiction.

Manning memorably termed his eventual political successor “a raging bull” with “wajang behaviour.”

He said he endured 12 years of Rowley’s “bullying,” all in silence.

In his combative manner, Rowley took the characterisation as a badge of honour, and imposed his bellicose tone against critics and supposed adversaries.

It is an open secret that the Prime Minister’s antagonistic manner has silenced a broad sweep of civil society commentators and media scribes.

They are reminded of Rowley’s verbal assault on harsh analysts, no matter how low on the totem pole.

Experts in political and the corporate world acknowledge that a leader’s behaviour significantly impacts the culture of the nation or organisation.

Strong character traits and effective and inspirational language are harnessing tools.

Leaders essentially set the ethical tone for a country’s moral compass, the experts say.

They state that ethical leadership goes beyond mere authority, and illuminate a path of integrity, empathy and responsibility.

Referring to Rowley’s attack in Parliament two years ago, commentator Denise Demming asked: “If our Prime Minister cannot control his anger and violent behaviour, then what do you expect of citizens?”

Professor Selwyn Cudjoe said that “only a bully behaves in this way,” after the Prime Minister reviled two opponents.

Cudjoe quoted a political stalwart as saying that Rowley “seems full of aggressiveness that borders on the maniacal.”

There have been inevitable comparisons with his prime ministerial predecessors, who were seen as being more measured.

When a Council for Ethical Political Conduct censured Rowley last year, he termed the group “steeped in bias.’’

The Express newspaper retorted that the Prime Minister’s “accusation is baseless, irresponsible and reckless, issued frOm a bully pulpit against an independent group of faith-based and non-government organisations…”

Rowley is not responsible for the tragic death of schoolboy Jayden Lalchan, of course, but it is beyond doubt that the nation’s leader has an undesirable domineering character.

In his mid-70s and toward the end of an eventful public career, the Prime Minister should alter his manner to one of greater purpose and worthy of emulation.

At a time of raging crises, a leader of compassion and self-control is the least the nation deserves.