Two PMs unseated in one year
…Panday shocked at Manning’s defeat
Anika Gumbs-Sandiford
Published: 30 May 2010
Basdeo Panday
Anika Gumbs-Sandiford
The year 2010 will surely go down in the history books of T&T as the year when two former prime ministers—Patrick Manning and Basdeo Panday—were both rejected by the electorate. Panday was ousted on January 24 in an internal party election, while four months later, Manning failed to lead his party to victory in the May 24 election and resigned as political leader of the People’s National Movement (PNM) three days later. It was the second time that Manning had paid the heavy price for calling a general election before it was constitutionally due, and consigned the PNM into opposition. Panday has accepted that his political career has dimmed and has opted to pursue other interests.
Manning, on the other hand, has left many in the leadership and thousands of supporters in utter dismay and hurt, all asking why he failed to learn from the mistake of 1995, something that haunts the PNM to date. Even Panday admits to the Sunday Guardian that he is yet to comprehend what might have contributed to Manning’s defeat on Monday. “I just cannot understand it; I am totally shocked,” Panday said. It was in 1995 that Manning called a general election which led to a deadlock between the PNM and the UNC. A partnership was struck between the National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR) and the UNC to form the next government. Many blamed Manning for that defeat. Exactly 15 years later, Manning makes the same mistake.
Is it the end of an authoritarian era?
While his defeat can be seen as the end of an era, political scientist Selwyn Ryan says it remains uncertain whether the new governance is a step in the right direction. However, Ryan says, only time will tell, as the transformation is not only a change in governance, but a regime.
“The regime is a much larger concept. It involves not only the personality, but the programmes, policies, styles, the narratives and the justifications for power. So, in the case of Manning, it would really be the end of an era and a change to a different style of leadership. There will be different ways of viewing and structuring things. The emphasis will be different. I think there is a fundamental difference between the two regimes.”
He said while one regime tends to be hierarchical, power and State centred, the other regime tends to put a great deal of emphasis on consultation and negotiation. “Will the politics change for the better or worse? I do not know as yet. We will have to face those problems when they occur,” Ryan says. Political analyst Dr Bishnu Ragoonath said while there was optimism that a birth of “new governance” is about to begin, it is too early to make assumptions. Ragoonath admits that he, too, was at a loss as to why Manning took such a gamble and called an election. He says, “There is a connection between the leadership of Manning and Panday. “In both instances, they felt that regardless of what the situation was, they would have had the support of the rank and file of members, but it turned out the opposite in both instances
