Some interesting questions have arisen of late about the PNM screening process and I would like to add a few of my own.
First, what is the role of party groups in the screening process and how are such groups chosen? Are they randomly selected, or specially selected by communities? Or are they chosen by a few people of influence in the party based in such communities, or do they simply emerge as pressure groups in communities making their voices heard?
In each instance, lobbying may take place but whatever method of choice is involved, lobbying is inevitable in the politics, like the protest on behalf of "old stagers" or manipulating groups to eliminate "recalcitrants."
Can we admit, however, that with all its shortcomings, it is essentially a democratic process involving input of the membership and that measures should be taken to ensure that the choice of candidate is based on commitment and competence above all other considerations?
Which is why, perhaps, a political leader's power of veto is necessary, for a leader must lead and often he is required to make unpopular decisions about choices which do not meet such criteria, but the issue of trusting the leader's judgment must underpin such decisions.
Can the PNM trust its leader's judgment? The thinking of some is that the rejection of two party stalwarts is underpinned by "agendas" in the leadership, for one of the "rejects" was definitely pro-Manning and implicitly anti-Rowley, and the other a "challenger" with all its implications.
But would it have been politically feasible for the leader to have such "impediments in the current" even as he tries to reinforce his leadership role and chart the way forward? Can the adage "politics has a morality of its own" apply here?
Further, if even he should have listened to the voice of the people, should he have succumbed to voices which stood for incumbency for the sake of it but which did not synchronise with his vision for the future?
What leadership capacity can one give to a leader who merely succumbs to the grassroots for the politics of it, as is the pattern? Even so, is there not some justification in the rejection, at least for one, with no party groups, reportedly, submitting on his behalf? Also, what of the argument that as a leader, Dr Rowley is trying to give a new face to the party bringing in new blood, a process which he started with the elimination of the balisier as a partisan symbol, not fitting the idea of governance for all the people?
And can the "one man-one vote" instituted by Rowley be seen as another dimension to the re-imaging of the PNM, in this instance giving it a more democratic face? Altogether, are these symptoms of a leader who can be trusted?
Some may argue that his forthrightness is a measure of his lack of control which takes away from that trust, but can this be viewed instead as the power of conviction deriving from his keen political insight into issues and the need to impact forcefully?
Can the PNM trust its leader altogether, and more specifically, with the screening process? I leave that to your better judgment.
Dr Errol Benjamin