More, Mr Manning

On Friday, Patrick Manning, former Prime Minister and political leader of the PNM, broke a political silence of more than nine months at his San Fernando constituency office to speak out on what was first promoted as a “defence against a nation under siege” and became most notable for a blanket apology for unspecified mistakes made over the course of his 40-year career in politics. The apologia was so broad as to be almost meaningless in the face of some quite specific accusations directed at the administration he led until 2010. “I think this is an appropriate time to apologise for those who feel, or who have felt, disenfranchised by any action I may have taken over the years as Prime Minister, or in any other capacity,” Manning told his audience.But what, really, does this statement mean?

What does it mean to protest that “no human being is perfect.” Indeed, Manning, easily the savviest politician present in the current Parliament, seemed particularly keen to change the conversation about these accusations by demanding answers from the People’s Partnership administration about drug busts at the port which remain under investigation. After calling the general elections two years early and facing the anger of the PNM faithful following the party’s failure at the polls, it is noteworthy that Patrick Manning’s first public speaking engagement for the year should deal with the important issue of drug trafficking rather than the more important matter of the PNM’s recent political history.

The former political leader has claimed that he remained silent because he did not wish to “detract” from the work of the party’s new leader, Dr Keith Rowley, “allowing my new leader to chart his own way.” Despite Mr Manning’s arguments that he was a “leader whose days had already gone,” it remained unclear why he chose to speak now about these specific topics when there remain matters of continuing national importance that would be well served by his participation and clarification. This can hardly be a matter that has escaped this experienced politician. In the face of the ruling coalition’s enthusiasm to unearth actionable items of political corruption, his guidance on these matters would have served his party better than stoic silence and proved invaluable in expanding the public understanding of so many issues that remain unanswered about the eight and a half years of the PNM’s stewardship of the nation’s business.

The former prime minister seemed to be still stung by the sudden, vicious turn his supporters took at that notorious Balisier House meeting of the PNM general council just three days after the party’s defeat at the polls when he found himself leaving Balisier House “in circumstances that were far less than honourable,” as he described it. That’s a tidy and understated description of the angry mob that all but hounded Manning off the compound that humiliating night. If he keeps his promises of Friday night, Mr Manning will be quitting politics at the end of this parliamentary term, having already informed his constituents that they should seek a successor.

Recent developments in Jamaica have offered the example of a different model for political succession, one guided by the supremacy of party over personality, as the embattled Bruce Golding stepped down from office, allowing his party to replace him as prime minister in an orderly manner. As the man who led T&T during much of the last decade when there was unprecedented and widespread distribution of the nation’s wealth, it would be valuable to hear from Mr Manning more often, speaking on a range of issues to do with the nation’s business in the nation’s parliament.