As a political leader, an instigating and mobilising force for the party he once led, as a potential prime minister, as leader of the Opposition, Patrick Manning is a spent force. And while he acknowledges that, the view persists that his "apology" is simply his way of seeking to be once again anointed as political leader of the PNM. His words of the last week, in one sense, amount to no more than a distraction from the much needed sharp and incisive monitoring of the Government and the critical scrutiny of the attempts by the Opposition to provide the country with a viable political alternative.
However, his statements should be studied as they represent the best/worse examples of an enduring political culture of maximum leadership and Anancy politics designed to dazzle and seduce the masses with what is considered political craft. Also, a study of Manning's words of "apology" when juxtaposed to his actions when he was "governor" could enlighten and inform on the political culture of the day and what has to be done to convert it into a people-centred intervention of tomorrow. Ostensibly, as far as this columnist understands, Manning's words were supposed to be an apology. But what was he apologising for?
"The people of Trinidad and Tobago may very well have thought that in me they would have found perfection. If that were the case I could have said from quite early on you had the wrong man, I am not perfect," said Manning to a news conference. Question: Where could that notion of Manning being the perfect leader come from? Well, early in his term he sought to usurp the title of "Father of the Nation"- much like Napoleon Bonaparte crowning himself emperor. His was a governorship in which he always conveyed the message that his Government's decisions (more precisely his decisions) were right, there was little need for discussion on them and indeed it was often the case that he did not enter into a rational discourse on policies and projects.
At a post-Cabinet news conference when a reporter challenged the decision on CAL, Manning's response was to the effect that when he and his Cabinet sat and decided on an issue it is usually the case that they were right over 90 per cent of the times. A review of the media coverage of decisions and projects engaged by the Manning administration would demonstrate that he refused to engage in serious national dialogue, he often castigated expert opinion when such views differed from his own, believing his to be the only opinion worthy of consideration. Which of the fundamental decisions taken by his government involving the expenditure of the patrimony of today's and future generations did he seriously consult with the population on and sought to incorporate the ideas given?
In fact, when challenged, Manning often referred to unpopular decisions taken by his government which turned up trumps as justification for studiously ignoring public opinion. Construction of the Brian Lara Promenade and the certainty he had that his government's crime plans would eventually work are two examples. Even in instances when after irresistible public pressure he condescended to hold public dialogue on matters-the smelter projects, agricultural production and procurement legislation-Manning and his government either ignored the outcome and content of the discussion and went ahead with its plans, or simply delayed any implementation, the rules of procurement being one example.
In an amazing display of su-preme confidence in the rightness of his actions, Manning stood on the side of Calder Hart against overwhelming odds. He even rejected the testimony of the former husband of Hart's wife, who made a familial connection between Sherrine Hart and the principals of a company favoured by Udecott for contracts. Manning said it was talk of a "jilted lover." And he took this position in favour of the Harts even while being forced to agree to an investigation into matters. Who can Manning then blame for the view that he was perfection squared? No surprise then that Manning did not admit to being wrong about anything. What he did say is that when leaders stay long in office it is wholly understandable that such leaders would not be able to please everyone: "It is not possible for any leader to conduct the affairs of any country, and for such a long time, without the decisions that he makes ... not adversely affecting some people."
There is therefore no regret for squandering hundreds of millions of dollars on a yet-to-be-completed stadium in Tarouba; none for the expenditure of hundreds more millions to construct facilities to place himself on stage at international conferences amongst world leaders with no realised benefit to the country; no regret for spending hundreds of millions on the Tobago Hospital yet leaving it unfinished and long past several missed delivery dates; no admission of failure of his government with billions of dollars at its disposal to take the necessary measures to initiate the transformation and diversification of the economy from its historical dependence on energy; no explanation on the fact that Abu Bakr and his insurrectionists were granted millions of dollars in contracts and that he was prepared to give them land; not a word on his failure to initiate meaningful discussion on the need for constitutional reform; ditto for how he manipulated his political party; and nothing said on the failure to discourage ethnic politics and positively encourage ethnic harmony.
Given the example of Manning, the existing political culture should discern that maximum leadership, the all-knowing leader and the marginalisation of the population in its own affairs must be transformed if there is to be political maturity and people involvement. Institutions, individuals, media, the business community, the church, the ngos and women's groups must study the form of political leadership and governance bequeathed by Manning to understand what is needed differently. The whole country must come to the conclusion that it cannot simply anoint a leader and leave to him/her to govern; the consciousness must come sharply that meaningful constitutional and institutional change must be achieved; we must become aware that fanaticism in politics encourages us to hand over the country and its resources to party and leader.
THOUGHTS
• Manning's words were sup-posed to be an apology. But for what was he apologising?
• Manning stood on the side of Calder Hart against over-whelming odds.
• No surprise Manning did not admit to being wrong about anything.