Does the P(N)M morally deserve to be re-elected?

According to press reports, the Hon. PM - that's Prime Minister Patrick Manning - claimed he had been pondering general election dates since last year, and that he called a snap election because it was becoming difficult to govern in the current climate of dissent.  In fact, the Lower House was due to debate the Opposition's motion of no confidence in the PM on 09 Apr 2010.  Like the proverbial thief, at midnight on 08 Apr 2010 to be precise, he advised the President to dissolve Parliament.  As if that wasn't strange enough, in an unprecedented break with tradition, he withheld the date of the general election - which by law was due within three months of Parliament's dissolution - and instead announced the election date of 24 May 2010 via press release one week later, on 16 Apr 2010.

Amidst the confusion, commentators initially pondered about the real reasons for Mr Manning's request for a new mandate two and a half years after he got his last one by 26 seats to 15.  One article asked the question: did the PM move to pre-empt the debate of no confidence?

After being told recently of a rumour that Mr Manning received reliable information that the no confidence motion would have been carried on 09 Apr 2010, I wish to review his actions against two scenarios: (1) that the rumour is true, and (2) that the rumour is false.

(1) The Hon. PM called a snap election because he would've lost the no confidence debate

If the rumour is true, then Mr Manning made a masterful political stroke by calling a snap election.  In fact, he appears to have acted fully within the law, and cleverly gave him and his party a chance to be re-elected.  However, I suggest that he was morally wrong as the interest of the country was ignored.

According to the constitution (available on T&T Parliament's website), Ch 5 Sec 77(1) says the PM must either resign or advise the President to dissolve Parliament within seven days of a no confidence motion being carried.  According to Ch 4 Sec 69 (1), general elections must be called within three months of Parliament being dissolved.

A snap election was the best option for Mr Manning personally.  I couldn't find anything to suggest that when a no-confidence motion is passed, the PM must automatically resign as party leader; the constitution only requires him to either resign as PM or ask for Parliament to be dissolved.  However, I believe that if he had lost the no confidence motion, his party's General Council would've had no choice but to ask him to resign and never would've allowed him to lead them in this campaign.  His career as Prime Minister, Party Leader and MP for San Fernando East would've ended in public ignominy in one fell swoop.  Given what we know of the character and ego of Mr Manning, there is no way he would've allowed that to happen.

A snap election was the best option for the PNM.  If Mr Manning allowed the motion to be debated and passed, then it would have been extremely difficult for his party to contest the election with the burden of that result over their heads.  Even if he had used the full three month gap allowed in setting the election date to give the PNM time to elect a new leader by Special Convention, the electorate would never have forgotten why the election occurred in the first place: the PNM government lost the confidence of the majority of the MPs in the Lower House, including some of the PNM MPs.

So, he acted in self-interest and in the interest in the party.

Was it in the interest of the country?  Parliament allows persons to make statements free from the threat of slander or defamation lawsuits.  The PNM MPs would be privy to information not disclosed to the Opposition or general public.  For them to vote against their leader in a no confidence motion, there would have to be extremely strong evidence of his personal involvement in wrong-doing.  If they were allowed to, in effect, act on this information on 09 Apr 2010 instead of waiting till who-knows-when it comes to light in another court of law, then the country's interest would have been served.  By pre-empting the no confidence motion, Mr Manning thus placed personal and party interest above the country's.

But then, who would've voted against Mr Manning?  For the motion to carry against him, at least six of the PNM MPs would have had to vote with the Opposition.  We only knew of the public squabble with Dr Keith Rowley, who was demoted from Cabinet and vilified by Mr Manning in Parliament after blowing the whistle on alleged bid-rigging at UDeCOTT.  Thus, Dr Rowley was at the top of the list of PNM dissenters.  Dr Rowley was astonishingly selected as the PNM's Diego Martin West candidate despite this, which appears to have partially muzzled him (court-martial references and 'vote for party but not for person' double-talk notwithstanding).  After screening for candidates, only 18 of the 26 PNM MPs who won their seats in 2007 were permitted to run in this election.  If this rumour is true, then does that mean that at least five of the eight replaced MPs were due to join Dr Rowley in voting with the Opposition in the no confidence debate of 09 Apr 2010?

(2) The Hon. PM called a snap election because of other reasons

Suppose the rumour is false. Then why would a Prime Minister in full control of his mental faculties force the country into a snap election given:

• his government was only two years and five months into his 5-year term won in Nov 2007
• by their own admission in the campaign, the economy was doing exceptionally well, compared to developing and developed countries
• his party was only four years into a plan based on their 15-year vision to developed nation status in 2020
• damning allegations of corruption were leveled at the government, with the PM's UDeCOTT star being a focal-point (including by whistle-blower who demoted from Cabinet)
• his party's majority in the lower house would've ensured he won the no confidence motion (even if Dr Keith Rowley abstained or voted with the Opposition).

Consider the possible results.  A snap election would've resulted in one of only three outcomes:

• The PNM would've lost
• The PNM would've won, but without a majority large enough to make constitutional changes without the support of the Opposition
• The PNM would've won with the majority required to make constitutional changes on their own.

Seasoned political scientist Dr Selwyn Ryan explored the issue in his Sunday Express column of 16 May 2010 entitled Time for change: no renewal of mandate deserved. He concluded that the third outcome was the most plausible explanation for Mr Manning's actions.  He suggested that Mr Manning's snap election decision "had to do with his vaulting ambition to be invested and sashed as Executive President."  In order to do so without help from the Opposition, the PNM required at least 31 seats in the Lower House.

Dr Ryan said other possible reasons were less plausible, including the rumour I explored above.  Another speculation was that Mr Manning sought a fresh 5-year mandate while the Opposition forces were in disarray, before more damaging discoveries come to light - perhaps from the investigations underway arising from the Uff Commission of Enquiry into the Construction Sector.  Dr Ryan found this to be plausible but not convincing.  However, I'm not so sure.

Firstly, there is absolutely no way, even with a cobbled-together coalition of Opposition parties, that the PNM could gain any of the seats won by the UNC in 2007 based on a single issue: Dr Keith Rowley's whistle-blowing of alleged bid-rigging at UDeCOTT, his demotion from Cabinet and public vilification by Mr Manning in Parliament, and his subsequent vindication by the Uff CoE.  Thus, I don't see how Mr Manning could've possibly concluded, even with an astounding delusion of grandeur, that he would win five more seats in this snap election to give him constitution-changing powers.

Further, a case would only go to court after investigations are concluded.  So far, what have we seen?  From the facts in the public domain, including statements by the Attorney General:

• investigations into UDeCOTT have been ongoing since Sep 2009 (eight months ago), by request of the Attorney General
• The Uff CoE conducted public hearings between 12 Jan and 22 May 2009 and 07-10 Dec 2009, so allegations were there to be investigated since Jun 2009, if not before
• the Uff Report was submitted on 29 Mar 2010, but exactly four weeks later the lead investigator was transferred on 27 Apr 2010
  
• the newly-installed Director of Public Prosecutions, upon receipt of evidence from the COP on 03 Mar 2010, launched an ACIB investigation into the allegations of perjury committed by Mr Hart during the Uff CoE - this is yet to be placed before the courts, despite police reports that they have all the evidence they need to move forward, and the COP taking a few days to confirm the allegations through direct contact with Malaysian authorities.

Do these facts give any confidence that investigations are being treated as urgent?  The expressed concern is that delays may continue if Mr Manning gets the PNM victory he seeks, arising from control over the investigative resources into corruption returning to his government.

Conclusion

If we accept the above to be the full set of reasons, then we're faced with the Prime Minister calling a snap election because it was:

• in his personal and party's self-interest in lieu of a negative no confidence motion result, and not in the country's best interest, or
• an opportunistic, naked yet improbable grab for constitutional-changing power culminating in his ascension to a new Executive President's throne, or
• an attempt to retain control of investigative resources to delay the uncovering of more skeletons of corruption.

Further, the PNM has dropped eight of their recently-elected MPs after their screening process - including the well-liked and respected Penelope Beckles-Robinson (twice).  That's 30% of their MPs effectively dropped based on their mid-term performance review and assessment of electability (including one Tobago MP who clearly pulled himself out) .  What does that say of their candidate selection process?

To put it another way, the calling of this snap election is like the curious relationship between a landlord and a gardening contractor.  The landlord has concerns about the contractor's treatment of his prize garden (from an independent source and the contractor's Senior Weed-cutter ).  The Chief Gardener publicly condemns the Senior Weed-cutter in the landlord's presence and demotes him to Water-boy.  Later, fearing a staff revolt over the issues, the Chief Gardener ends the contract over two years early, cuts 30% of his most senior staff, keeps the dissenting Senior Weed-cutter-cum-Water-boy and then asks the land owner to re-hire him and his new team, even after admitting they 'cut corners'.  The Water-boy, whose role on the new team is yet to be known, periodically tells the landlord during the bid process: 'I don't have to like the Chief Gardener for you to hire us... You're not hiring us because of the staff, you're hiring us because we name Perfectly Nice Maintenance... After you hire us, we would find time to court-martial the Chief Gardener.'

Given all of the above, does the PNM led by Mr Patrick Manning morally deserve to be re-elected on 24 May 2010?