?Two important features of the PNM constitution were changed under the leadership of Dr Keith Rowley: removing the political leader's veto, and replacing delegates for the election of party officers with one man-one vote. These significant changes must be recognised in evaluating Rowley's role as political leader.
There is however emerging a pattern somewhat reminiscent of the PNM under Patrick Manning.
1. After Rowley challenged Manning for the party leadership, onlookers got the sense that Manning took umbrage at Rowley's "audacity" and his relationship with Rowley soured. Is there a similarity with Penny Beckles-Robinson?
2. With ambitions in 2007 to become executive president, Manning hand-picked all candidates for parliament using his constitutional veto. Seasoned mature and performing members including such as Ken Valley and John Rahael were given the boot and in came many unknowns. Ken Valley had performed for 20 years in parliament starting in the senate in 1987. He was nominated by all party groups bar one or two, but Manning wanted no obstacles to the executive presidency.
The Manning-nominated MPs will understandably have a certain loyalty to Manning, hopefully not too blind. But by screening and choosing almost all new candidates for the 2015 elections the public will query whether a "Rowley cult" is emerging to replace a "Manning cult." There is merit in bringing some new faces to the government should the PNM be elected, but to include more of the political experience now being parked aside would in my view make the government stronger.
Keith Rowley' leadership is seen as critical and important to the PNM; but enlightened T&T citizens put country before party, and an enlightened party leadership should put party before personality. The political leader must seek to win the confidence of all its members. There are many sycophants, but not all are.
Michael J Williams