Episode Transcript
[00:00:02] Speaker A: Welcome back.
Well, this time we have joining our program, a gentleman who's been with us before, and he's going to be with us this morning speaking about several things, including leadership of the P and M. Let's welcome to our program here this morning, political analyst doctor Shane Mohammed. Good morning to you.
[00:00:24] Speaker B: And welcome back to our good morning Satish. Thank you so very much for having me. And good morning to your listeners as well.
[00:00:29] Speaker A: It's been quite some time since last week's, but it's nice to have you here this morning. You seem to set a lot of tongues wagging by making a statement that you have information that somebody wants to get rid of Brian Manning. That's what I do. You do? Well, that's, that's quite a pronouncement to make in times like these.
There's a lot of focus on the P and M and what's going on. And Brian Manning, we know, carries a, with him a legacy he represents. And I spoke about this when we were having the discussion about Stuart Young and foster Cummings earlier on. And I had said that Brian Manning, if he does decide to throw his hat into the ring for, in 2026 for political leader of the PNM, it would be quite a dynamic simply because of who he is and what he represents and all those kinds of things.
Why would somebody want to get rid of Brian Manning?
[00:01:29] Speaker B: Well, because one, the reverence that goes behind the seat of San Fernando east and the fact that people see Brian Manning within the framework of the PNM as just simply a tool that was used to unify the party in preparation of the, for the 2020 general election. And that level of cohesiveness really would have put into the minds of persons in and out of the PNM, that maybe Doctor Rowley as prime minister and political leader, was really making an attempt back then to reunite the party, let bygones be bygones as it pertains to his history with Mister Manning senior by having Mister Manning junior join the slate and, you know, return to the party for the sake of the party on a national perspective and in the interest of country. We are, here we are five years later, and my sources, I said to someone last night, so I will say it here, we as political scientists, we don't speak out of tune and we don't speak without having sound information and knowledge from our various sources, regardless of where the, which party we're talking about. And in this instance, it was quite unique. And I've had this information for a while and what I thought was ironic was that the suggestion of Brian Manning as a potential leadership candidate didn't come from me originally. It came from someone who is a constituent, a constituent of Port of Spain, north St. Anne's west, which is the constituency held by Stuart Young. And that is where I took notice that, you know, very often, quite often, in fact, political parties take seats and their constituents for granted, and they still continue to believe that we are UNC or PLM, as the case may be, till we dead, and therefore, no matter. And the saying of, we could put a crap wearing a tie and a jacket and put it in a safe seat and they go, still win. That mentality among politicians still applies. So, but I. And therefore, they take for granted the thinking and the intelligence of their constituents and what they would call as their base supporters. I found it quite ironic that this information came to me and, you know, the ground itself said, and the article came from the Trinidad Guardian, where the citizens said, in his opinion, they might as well hand it to young Manning. After all, he would have his training from his father. He might be able to do something with the party going forward. And I took it. I took it as the opportunity to say, but wait, this is what your people are saying. But at the same time, within the hierarchy and within the structure of the party, they are serious moves to get this man out of the way.
[00:04:58] Speaker A: I've had.
[00:04:58] Speaker B: It wasn't said. It wasn't said. Um, you know, just like that. To be honest with you, I understand.
[00:05:04] Speaker A: What you're saying, and the context with, within which the conversation came up is in, is important. I've had the opportunity to speak to Brian Manning and I've had the opportunity to speak to Mikhaila Pandey. And I said to both of them that, you know, they're similar in many regards, based on their history, who their fathers were, and the role that each had played in politics and that kind of thing, that there is an instilled level of support that they would get if they decide to take their political careers in a different, in a specific direction.
Brian Manning being brought into the fray of the PNN Washington at that point in time, described as a master stroke. But then you also had Amory Brown and, well, Penelope Beckles was always there, but bringing them more into the foreground was an attempt, as we all know, and as you said, to shore up support.
The powers that be think that they don't need that anymore.
[00:06:15] Speaker B: Well, there are several things that play, which is, you know, I had a conversation today, this morning, just before I came on the show, I had a conversation about, is it that. And the question was asking me, is it that Brian is just like everybody else? And I was like, in what regard? In the fact that, you know, is he just like every other minister or MP that is just there, you know, you only, who you only see for elections? I said, well, no, not exactly, because the problem that Brian faces is that one, and it's unfortunate, to be quite honest, is that Brian is not a minister with cabinet responsibility, at least as far as I am aware. And he works under the leadership of two persons, the minister of finance and the prime minister. And I gather anyone who works under the stewardship of the minister of finance particularly must be strategic as well as stoic, as well as personally responsible for what they say, when they say it, how they move their body language. Because they're under the direct watch, I should say, as under the direct watch as a very, from a very, quite a, what I looking for to describe quite a very quote unquote critical person within the hierarchy of the PNM. So therefore, any bad move, anything that is not said in agreement or said to please the minister of finance, could very well lead in somebody's detriment. And that applies not only to inbert himself, but any minister who has the air of a prime minister. But so just he has to, he would have to be very cautious as to what his political moves are. And quite frankly, in the last five years, even into 2020, Brian has not done anything to upset the apple cart. He is there, he's serving his constituents as best as he can with the resources that he has and keeping his head down and doing the people's work as he rightfully said. But at the same time, if you sit in a seat that is viewed in the worst of times, let's just take 33, three, and then secondly, in 20 912, when you sit in a seat that stood with the PNM, they say, well, right, in the worst of our days, this seat stood at us, these people stood at us, we are safe, therefore we have nothing to worry about.
It also has that level of, it also one has to also take into consideration that level of party politics and traditional political behavior on the part of politicians and ministers as well. So they will, they will in turn say, well, you know, they need people loyal. There's no need to, to pump a lot of money. So Brian, you had to work with. We get bottom line.
[00:09:28] Speaker A: Yeah.
Looking at the story on page 86 of the Guardian newspaper here on Brian Manning and speaks about some of the things that he's done. Correct. And I've had interactions with him on certain things. I mean, he's been on the program and everything else, and he. From what I know, and you can't put your head on a block for everybody, right. But for anybody. But from what I know of him, he really does strive to see how best he can help people once people get in touch with him.
[00:10:01] Speaker B: And I agree with you on that.
[00:10:02] Speaker A: There are some people who are dismissive once they are in office and you can't get. And that's a reality. There are some people who even care to take your call, much less to listen to what you have to say.
Brian Manning is not that individual. Agreed. He has spent his entire life around politics.
His, his father exposed, they. They could not get away from it. And Brian Manning was involved in things from, from an early age, activism and being involved in politics and a lot of the other things. But why are we having. And this is a question that, that, um. I'd love to get your opinion on, why are we having this discussion about leadership in the P and M when it's not due until 2026?
[00:10:45] Speaker B: That's a very smart question. Satish. Um, I was going to ask you the same question. Why are we having a conversation about a vacancy that is yet to be filled and a vacancy for which there's none? Because there's anticipation. When a man gets up into parliament and he has, he makes a statement, as Doctor Rowley did, thanking the speaker, thanking his colleagues. For me, I didn't see. A lot of persons saw it as a so and so.
I saw it as a little bit morbid, because it was.
It was not like the parliament was getting dissolved that night. It is not as if the prime minister had made up a firm decision. Yes, I will not be returning to sneak Omartin west in the next five weeks. This is something that. So there was a lot of anticipation that a possibility of a possibility that a general election would happen in December. And I'm starting. We. Everyone is starting to rule that out, because neither. I don't think anybody, including the prime minister, anticipated there would be so much backlash. He would receive such opposition from his decisions about delaying the internal elections of the party and whatnot, and that Stuart Young would create such a stir by the hot mic issue, which further compounded person's dislike for him.
He didn't anticipate all of those things. So maybe in his mind, he would have thought that his departure from active politics was imminently imminent, I would say, but it's not. So we have any discussion because there's an anticipation that this may occur. And as Trinbekonians are, we like to have a $0.02 in what could be and what not and forget what is. So we are really and truly having a discussion about a what could be situation. But it's a situation that is very realistic because this, the fact of the matter is the scenario of a possibility of who succeeds in the PNM may also has the impetus of causing persons to decide how they vote in the next election in anticipation. Even if Doctor Rowley leads the party into that next election and withholds his cards on the political leadership of the party close to his chest or away from the eyes of persons who are now curious to see what would your next move be. Because there are two persons within his party hierarchy that he would have, you know, who well won, the labour Minister of Labour who he would have seen as very loyal to himself as well as his former colleague who he imported from Ghana to sit in his cabinet. Um, Mister Lahont, who are both saying two things that are very critical to the overall leadership of the party. One, in the, in terms of misses Betty's Primus, I don't. She says she doesn't agree with the further delay of the internal election. Obviously it's, it could be one out of two things. She is ready to hand up and hang up her hat because she's holding an executive position and she would also like to see people in the party have their say as to who forms the leadership council and whatnot and executive of the party. And then on the other hand, you are seeing Mister Lahan say, well, hold on, I don't think that it is right for you to hoist the leader on the party and on the population. Let the process take place and let the members of the PNM decide who do they actually want to lead the PNM. So it could also be. The question I could ask is, is that an indication that maybe Mister Lahont is interested in the leadership of the party? Who knows? So, you know, yes, the conversation is really happening because of the possibility of what could be and what could influence people's ability to vote or not vote in a general election as well.
[00:15:16] Speaker A: We've been having a lot of discussions about it. I quite frankly think that Doctor Oli, playing smart with stupidness agreed. Just as when he said that elections are around the corner, he made that statement, jump on a plane and go on his way and people fighting up, everybody's scampering and everybody saying, well, election just now and this and that. And I said I do not see the PNM making the same mistake again. And I say mistake intentionally, of calling an election before it's due.
And for many reasons. And the most important one is that the PNM is not uncomfortable in office. Nobody is making life uncomfortable for them to the point where they would need to consider having an election to shore up support or whatever else they could ride it out until 2025, unbothered. I mean the opposition is not necessarily doing anything to make life uncomfortable for the government in the. In the greatest scheme of things, citizens, civil society, nobody, trade unions, nobody is making life uncomfortable for us. So what's the purpose? What's the benefit of calling an election a whole year before it's due? It just. It just don't make sense to me.
[00:16:27] Speaker B: And yes, you have to take into consideration as well. Satish is that when you look, Doctor Ollie hasn't made it very clear, clarion Clay, crystal clear that he has no intentions whatsoever of following in the footsteps of his predecessor and former colleague, Mister Manning. And therefore he would have seen. He would have sat in the parliament and he would have gone through the two times that Mister Manning would have called on the election early and saw what the results of those elections were. And if he is indeed interested and serious about putting Mister Young as his version of a successor.
And now he is receiving a lot of backlash from it. I mean it didn't take a political scientist to tell the population, or a journalist, in fact to tell the population that Mister Young is not popular. But he has been.
[00:17:26] Speaker A: He has a question.
Where or when did Doctor Rowley say that he has endorsed Stuart Jung as the next leader of the PNM in his opinion.
[00:17:34] Speaker B: Well that's the thing. Actions speak louder than words, right? And you have had. So you have to read into the politics from the perspective as to why. Choose to what? Young as the person to replace Carl Maybert as acting prime minister opposed to Penelope Beckles or Camille Robinson Regis. Let's just use those two for now. When you could even you. I wouldn't. I wouldn't say that he should ask Amrita to lead the party act as prime minister. Because it's most times when the prime minister is traveling before and for foreign minister is traveling as well. So let's just use Camille and Penelope as two examples. They are good reasons for even in the match in birth.
I don't think at this stage that Camille is bothered about the leading of the party in terms of holding political leadership. I think she's paid her dues. She has this version of her as a minister has been about mentoring young females coming up into the party. And she's done a really good job in terms of mentoring young women and, you know, putting them in a position to have a space and a place in the party's structure. So she also has the years of experience serving as a minister in different capacities. So she's more than capable of acting as prime minister. And then you have Penny Beckles, who also has years of experience as well, together with Mister, with Doctor Rowley and Misses Robinson, Regis and Inbert and others who would have entered into the parliament since the 1991 period, served her jews in and out of the parliament, served in the Senate. So she has the best of all three parts of the governance structure, as an ambassador, as a senator, as a government minister, as an opposition member, etcetera. So, but he chose not to put these persons to act for him. And I think strategically didn't put, would nothing put misses, misses Beckles Robinson to act for him for the purposes that it may just reignite the flame of the movement that she would have had for her to when she was campaigning for leadership of the party. Taking into consideration, it is not a drawn out conclusion that she's not contending or is not a candidate for a possibility of his replacement. Why find that fire? Why give, why no politician who sees a minister as a quote unquote, direct threat to their leadership or challenge to their leader, challenge to their leadership would make that mistake. Right? So in other words, what I'm saying is he's put someone who he favors in Burt's was seen as, okay, second in command, not necessarily as a person to lead the party next, but the person who stabilizes and who is the government in place regarding as it pertains to how he thinks, what is his, you know, he's not moving or shaking. He really just hoses. Everybody was sat back and sat back and said, okay, in what is acting prime minister, we could understand why you take somebody completely new. This is not a farisal Rawi as well, whose name you could, those younger ones he takes specifically Stuart Young, who has been his mascot, his political mascot. He has groomed him office of the prime minister, Minister of communications, Minister of national security, took over as minister of energy. Stuart has been championing and beating his chest about all of the negotiations he has done to secure gas deals, etcetera, etcetera. And he also is a strong supporter of the prime minister. And the prime minister seems to have gravitated towards him and favors him over others.
[00:21:43] Speaker A: But by his.
[00:21:45] Speaker B: By all of that adding up, he has made him act.
[00:21:49] Speaker A: Yeah, but.
[00:21:50] Speaker B: And stir the pot as this is. And Sturdy pot at the right time when he was sit. When he's also saying at the same time and getting ready to retire. So it kind of intersects with each other, the two scenarios. Intersects. That's why. That's the assumption. And I. Obviously I've been saying now that. That Stuart is the heir presumptive, not the heir apparent of the. Of the party.
[00:22:17] Speaker A: Well, it speaks to a couple other fundamental issues that need to be discussed and. Well, I think there are two that need to be looked at. Is the P and M ready for a non afro leader?
[00:22:35] Speaker B: They have. The party has evolved. They have tried their very best to diversify their look over the years. Mister Manning started it. Over the years we saw the trajectory.
There's enough at this stage to say that there's a lot of diversification that has taken place.
[00:22:55] Speaker A: Yeah, but diversification, but not diversification of the leadership.
[00:22:59] Speaker B: Divers. Well, when you look at the leadership days, Mister Citrun is one of the deputies. Mister Inbert is one. So that's two levels of diversification in terms of look. Misses Gatsby, Dolly is another look. And then Tobago, it's another look when you look at. And well, the vice chairmanship is empty right now. Vacant. Then you have Stewart as chair and Camille Robinson as lady vice chair. Those are the one of those who make up the leadership council.
[00:23:30] Speaker A: But leadership council aside and a part of me, the UNC doing the same thing. And it's a question for them as well. You have all these people around the leader who are window dressing for want of a different term, representative of everything. Yeah, we are all the races. They look. You can't. You can't fault us.
[00:23:45] Speaker B: I think. I think in the UNC's instance, I'm just throwing this out that in the UNC's instance, I think if Mister Warner had thrown in his hat into the. If there was a discussion and back in 2010 and Mister Warner had thrown his hat into the ring for political leadership in a discussion with misses beside. Back then, I don't think the country or the party back then would have been against Mister Warner being leader of the UNC. And in now in the current instance, I think Miss Julian John is very much a mover and shaker within the party from my observation, from looking from the outside in. And therefore she could be seen as someone who could be a successor if she so chose.
Misses if that is, if that instance arose. So I think the UNC is more from a thinking perspective. The UNC seems to be a lot more comfortable is the word I would use with the idea of a non Indian leading the party.
I'm yet to say that I can say that the P and M is ideally prepared for a non Afro. I think in the instance of Stuart, I'm just using this as an example. I'm not directly throwing a name in, but I'm just using it as an example. I think when you take Stuart in terms of the ones who are non Afro and you pivot Stewart against Paris, there's a whole different dialogue there and a whole different level of backlog to be back lash, to be received. Sorry, in that regard, because not none is without its own baggage. So Stewart has his baggage with the whole issue of the MCNCD bank and all the different things. That is his in his lack of ability to connect to the ground, to be relatable, comes across as arrogant, aloof. I sat in a room of with academics who and saw Stuart Young literally attack one of my colleagues because she asked a pertinent question and it was very disrespectful in that regard. So I personally find that professionally and personally, BB leader Stewart is not fit for the role because he lacks the ability connect to connect, pivot Faris to get to Stuart. Faris has charisma. He has the ability to connect. He greets people, he's present, he is, you know, but on the other hand, he maybe he is able to connect on the ground, people like him, whatnot. But then there's the other aspect of his personality, his political background and baggage, which is the rental and the exorbitant amount of money that has been spent in rental money and whatnot. So there's that, those things that come into play that make people a little bit uncomfortable.
I will say, however, that in the instance, if you put Faris against Stuart, people may look more towards Faris than Stuart because of his ability to be more relatable and charismatic and whatnot.
[00:27:07] Speaker A: But you can't.
[00:27:08] Speaker B: I'm not sure that the party is ready for someone outrightly, as I could say with conviction that I believe the UNC members and would be more comfortable in that regard.
[00:27:19] Speaker A: So the second issue that I think this highlights in a great way, this discussion is the issue of succession planning in politics in our country.
And I broaden it because the UNC had the same problems when it comes to who next. I mean, when you have these questions, people tell you, Kamala Posabi says that needs to go and this and that and the next. And my follow up question is, all right, if not Kamala Posabi saysa who? And you hear crickets because people, everybody know Kamala is supposed to go, but they know who's supposed to replace her, right? And it highlights, and that's the UNC. And the PNM is the same thing because have we ever had a political leader saying, well, all right, sending signals that this is the person they would want to replace? I don't think that has ever happened before because our politicians wanted dead in office and they don't ever give signals about, well, I think this is where the party should go. No party, the UNC and PNM, I don't think have that kind of structure in place to groom people to say, well, all right, if there is the need, if a vacancy arises and we need somebody to become the political leader, these are the front runners for such a race. No party does that. Is that something that you think will ever change in this country?
[00:28:36] Speaker B: Well, I think it's something that should be, it's something that's very important for sustaining political leadership and good governance. I mean, there's the intersection of political leadership together with public policy, public administration, which is all part of the governance structure. So it all intersects into one. In the bottom line is that we strive for good governance with this intersection of, with the intersectionality of these, these different spheres as it pertains to doing the people's business. And when you look at political party structures in Trinidad and Tobago, I could say that there has not necessarily been grooming, but there has been coaching and mentoring by past leaders, which is, and I can read, let's go just, just immediately backwards, which is Mister Manning and Mister Pandey.
Mister Pandey.
I mean, and I tell people this all the time, that misses Prasad Besesa did not become the first female attorney general by chance.
She didn't become the first female acting prime minister by chance. There had to be, from the leadership eye and his viewpoint, a specific level of confidence and, and qualities that he was looking for at the time, at the time to say to him that and for him to be confident that, okay, this person is quite, this person meets my threshold or requirements to serve effectively as attorney general. And not just because she's woman, but because she has the capacity, the acumen, etc. To carry the portfolio. And that's his, that's how he made his decision. The same applies to when he made her acting prime minister.
It wasn't just by women fantasy it. The person who acts as prime minister must be able to hold the fort in a very real way and manage the personalities in a cabinet setting in a very, very, very real way. And therefore, clearly Mister Pandey thought and believe that Misses Besad Besassar had the capacity to do so. That's one. So when you go back to the 2015 five internal elections of the party, you saw three persons contestant. Then Mister Ramish Lawrence Mirage, misses Posad recessor and Mister Carlos John. The results show who came 1st, second and third. History shows that the former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence, senior counsel, won.
Those things, you know, those things indicate who could be next. And in the eyes of the leadership and in the eyes of the membership, right.
The same could be said about Mister Manning. We all knew that over the years. Why is it that in 2024, when an election, a possible internal election, or a leadership race which is not even due for another two years for the PNM comes up, the first two names that pops up is Amy Brown and Penelope Beckles. Because that has also been a level of mentoring and coaching, or as we take for granted and use the word grooming that has taken place since the time of Mister Manning. And therefore, they are able to traverse the leadership of the party from one tenure to the other and their names resurface as potential leaders going forward. We could say now, in the current context of the uncle, there was all eyes were on, specifically on Doctor Rudol Manilal. Because he would have grown up in the party. He would have started from youth leader all the way up. He would have been one of those that would have been coached and mentored directly by Mister Pandey. He would have, in the 2010 internal elections, he would have been one of those on Mister Pandey's slate that would have survived the election. And therefore, he was seen as a key personality to be a future leader of the party.
I think it is open season in the UNC.
It's different. It's a different dynamic, unfortunately or fortunately, where the ability for leaders to arise in the future is a good thing, you could see personalities emerging. And so there's still some level of flexibility for the UNC to have leaders of quality. And I say that very importantly, leaders of quality arise within the party. That then takes me to another conversation, which is another level of the conversation whereby in order for the UNC to be successful against what is now one of the most unpopular governments in the history of Trinidad and Tobago, they have to be one either able to match the caliber of their candidates or two be better than the caliber of the candidates. Is the leadership of the party prepared to do that is the question that needs to be asked. And the focus first on leadership succession within the party structure is a second, for me, a second grade question at this stage, because I feel at this point in time, you have, let's just say, two, three personalities within the party who is good enough to hold the reins.
And at the end of the day, like it or not, this is an election that comes down between a choice between Doctor Rowley and misses. Posad v. Sasha. It is an election for either side to win or to lose. They need to decide what their future looks like.
[00:34:53] Speaker A: I think we need to have some more discussions on this moving forward.
[00:34:56] Speaker B: Oh, for sure.
[00:34:56] Speaker A: Yeah. This definitely requires a round two and I'd love to get the input of our listeners, but we're out of time. I want to thank you so much. It's been a really engaging discussion on a topic that should impact. Well, it does impact, actually, on each and every single one of us. Thank you so much for being with us here this morning.
[00:35:12] Speaker B: Thank you so very much for having me. Satish and I do look forward to our comeback and it's been too long.
[00:35:16] Speaker A: Intro yes, we'll arrange another one quickly. And for those of you who may have joined us midway, we were speaking this morning with political analyst doctor Shane Mohammed.
