Why Karen never stood a chance, and…

NOT A DAMN DOG BARK AT MAXIMUM LEADER ROWLEY 

By KEN ALI 

WORKERS of URP and CEPEP were commandeered to vote for Dr. Keith Rowley in the People’s National Movement’s leadership contest. 

Non-PNM members were hurriedly registered, and several were summoned to campaign meetings and election day mobilisation duties. 

Some were promised food hampers, to be issued by the Ministry of Social Development and funded by taxpayers. 

The workers were provided with free transportation and a nominal meal to attend the party’s rally. 

Karen Nunez-Tesheira, the main leadership challenger, had little pre-election activity and virtually no polling day machinery. 

In a David versus Goliath fight, Ms. Nunez-Tesheira was operating on a shoestring budget, with minimal media attention, and without an eye-catching supporting cast. 

Rowley suborned the party’s apparatus, attracted financial support from party big-wigs, and, by virtue of his prime ministership, had the ability to attract media attention. 

The victory by the incumbent was so predictable that it was the non-news of the PNM’s annual convention. 

Rowley’s victory was overshadowed by disturbingly low voter turnout, blatant testimony of widespread party disenchantment. 

Indeed, there is growing anxiety over the embattled party in political war with a non-performing, lack-lustre leader, better known for his dramatics than his delivery.  

While he remains entrenched as leader, there is simmering dissent from the bowels of the party about Rowley, in his mid-seventies, with a poor work ethic and beset with a mountain of national crises. 

But, to adapt an infamous expression by Dr. Eric Williams, “not a damn dog bark” in disapproval of the party leader. 

On the day of the polls, Professor Selwyn Cudjoe wrote of the “narcissistic sycophancy” toward the “maximum leader”. 

Cudjoe slammed: “Bowing down to the maximum leader results in the disastrous social outcomes we see in totalitarian states”. 

He observed that “other potential leaders within the party … continue to mark time, waiting for Rowley to pass away, become disabled, or give up the ship before they show their hands”. 

The professor is on target with his analysis. 

There are at least three leadership aspirants from the PNM’s current frontline and a couple of second string operators who are convinced the party must pass the baton. 

But none is showing his hand, fearful of being demonised and dumped. 

One ambitious politico fomented a sinister campaign against another leadership hopeful. 

There is internal bickering, but, because of sharp cultural differences, the party would not wash its dirty linen in public, unlike its political rivals. 

The PNM has never engaged in succession planning. 

An ailing Dr. Williams died on the job, and it was Head of State Ellis Clarke, who, in selecting a Prime Minister, also de facto appointed a successor PNM boss. 

But uneasy lies the head that wears the PNM crown. 

Rowley’s political style of bluster and bullying has worn thin among many of his colleagues, who feel the heat of a society burdened with crime, joblessness, and poverty. 

Cudjoe makes the pointed observation that “the PNM’s leadership is riddled (with) this negative behaviour that can only lead to a downward spiral in the areas of violent crime, a rapidly deteriorating infrastructure, and a stuttering economy”. 

Many concede that the PNM could be routed electorally if the political opposition coalesces and resolves leadership issues. 

In the meantime, party operatives are grinning and bearing it, hopeful that the Cabinet would respond effectively to a nation in crisis. 

Among the PNM masses, there is virtual consensus that the party should not summon local government election while the country remains a political tinderbox. 

At mid-term in the life of his administration, Rowley must do a lot of heavy lifting if he is to regain the favour of the East-West Corridor, fed up with crime at their doorsteps and inability to properly feed their families. 

In addition, Rowley must make a sea change in his personality, displaying empathy and sensitivity to a strife-torn country. 

But profound transformation is never a feature of rooted politicians, especially one depicted by his boss Patrick Manning as “a raging bull”. 

It is not likely that Rowley would alter his manner, especially now that the party chairman is Stuart Young, who is cut from the same political cloth of aggression and acrimony. 

Trinidad and Tobago has never had a Prime Minister of Rowley’s age, nor has it been submerged with such a crime emergency, to add to the welter of other social and economic woes. 

The upcoming years would be unchartered territory for a political party that has made no effort at reform in order to embrace the diverse society. 

The PNM is also still displaying the outward fawning and flattery of the leader that pervaded the Williams era, a factor that has contributed to the party intermittently losing political power. 

Could Rowley’s boisterousness lead the PNM to another electoral victory, or is a fate similar to that of Manning awaiting him? 

One thing is clear: Rowley is enamoured with power and is revelling in the moment even with a nation in torment. 

For sure, more political turmoil is ahead.