To the surprise of many, Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Patrick Manning has called a snap election. At the time of writing, he had, for reasons unknown, not yet announced the date. With the dissolution of Parliament on April 8, the general election has to be held by July 8, 2010. But as election fever rises, the window for holding elections is getting smaller.
History is not, however, on Mr Manning’s side. The last time he called a snap election in 1995, he lost to Basdeo Panday’s United National Congress (UNC). Now, rumour and speculation abound as to what motivated the Prime Minister to call an election barely half-way into his term. Going to the polls for a renewed five-year mandate at the risk of losing two-and-a-half years in power appears to be more of a political gamble born of desperation than calculated political arithmetic.
True, Mr Manning asked the President to dissolve parliament a day before an opposition motion of no-confidence was to have been debated. The motion was prompted by the release of the Uff Report into the construction sector, which had revealed widespread irregularities in the operations of the state-owned Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago (Udecott) and raised possible grounds for criminal proceedings to be brought against its chairman, Calder Hart, a man apparently answerable only to the Prime Minister.
But with a clear majority in parliament, the government was expected to defeat the motion handily. Did the potential for embarrassment justify laying everything on the line in a general election? And, by formally declaring open the silly season, has the Prime Minister not ensured that whatever dirt the opposition is rumoured to have up its sleeve will certainly be aired during the electoral campaign in a way calculated to do the most political damage?
What of the contention of some observers that Mr Manning was afraid that a few of his own MPs might side with the opposition and vote against him? This seems a little far-fetched, given the reputation for party discipline enjoyed by the ruling People’s National Movement (PNM). Then again, in addition to Mr Manning’s very public falling out two years ago with Dr Keith Rowley, his former Trade and Industry Minister and putative rival for the party’s leadership, and his rejection this week of veteran MP and PNM stalwart, Penelope Beckles, to defend her Arima seat in the election, there have been strong rumblings that all is not well in the party.
Indeed, all but the deaf, dumb and blind within the PNM would be hard pressed not to acknowledge that there is general public unhappiness and growing anger over the perceived arrogance of the Prime Minister and most of his ministers, their less than inclusive approach to governance, the Prime Minister’s born-again religious fervour, the government’s “squandermania” due to high oil prices, the Udecott and other public sector scandals and, again in the midst of plenty, an almost criminal inability to channel resources into addressing the preoccupations and expectations of the average citizen in the face of escalating violent crime and the insufficiency of basic public services across the country.
Time, however, may not be on the side of the opposition. Kamla Persad-Bissessar only became the leader of the UNC in January when she defeated Basdeo Panday in internal party elections. Mr Panday himself remains bitter and the wounds from that battle are still to be healed. And when Mr Manning announced his intention to call an election, the UNC and Winston Dookeran’s Congress of the People had only just agreed to come together to challenge the PNM. Mr Manning then may well be gambling on the fact that the opposition forces, in a state of relative unreadiness, will be unable to present to the nation a credible, united platform in time to unseat his government.
On the other hand, Mr Manning’s surprise move may just be what the opposition needed to galvanise them into forging an alliance strong enough to ride the growing wave of public discontent, crossing ethnic, tribal and class barriers, in Trinidad and Tobago.
Mrs Persad-Bissessar has already shown in the UNC election that she has formidable political skills and the capacity to appeal to a younger, more informed electorate. She will now have to prove that she and her team have the ability to transcend race and to offer an alternative that goes beyond criticism of the government’s failings to present a new blueprint for inclusive governance and development. In addition, she has the challenge of proving that her leadership and vision can transcend the traditional, male-dominated and often fractious politics of Trinidad and Tobago, to reconcile differences within the UNC and the opposition alliance to chart a new path for the country.
As much as 65% of the country’s electorate is said to be under the age of 45, and a lot of women in the nation appear to be energised by the hope for the future Mrs Persad-Bissessar represents. Mrs Persad-Bissessar has dealt with Mr Panday. She will now need every ounce of her political intelligence and inner fortitude to implement a strategy to defeat Mr Manning and the PNM. Most political commentators in the Trinidad media, including prominent African-Trinidadians, agree that the country is ripe for change. If Mrs Persad-Bissessar is elected prime minister that change will be truly historic as she will become the first female prime minister in the history of Trinidad and Tobago.
And if Mr Manning wins, he will undoubtedly be hailed as a political strategist of the highest order.
The election period is short, the hustings will be intense and the campaign will probably degenerate into mudslinging. The outcome, however, will depend on whether the politicians themselves and the electorate focus on the issues and whether people vote not according to race or tribe but in accordance with their conscience and a genuine belief in what is best for their country.
