Public speaking is an art built on a few key principles. The speaker must know his subject, establish a connection with the audience, and convey the message clearly and with conviction. To do this, the speaker must have a command of the language and make the story engaging, if not entertaining.
Often, the audience may not be aware of the facts, but the speaker can sway the audience with the power of the delivery. Politicians understand this well, as they must master the art of communication.
The general election is 15 months away, but the battle lines are already drawn. To win the confidence of the electorate, a political party must have a powerful message to convince citizens that it can be trusted and that its policies are sound and appropriate to the task. Opposition parties can only challenge and promise to deliver if they are successful at the polls.
Conversely, an incumbent government can point to its accomplishments in navigating and addressing economic and social challenges. Unfortunately, it often comes down to choosing the least bad alternative. Political parties often present competing claims that are greatly at odds, and the public is asked to make a judgement call as many are not familiar with the facts.
Several glaring disparities were competing for the public’s attention last week. Responding to a former energy minister's contention that the PNM had misrepresented the facts on the energy sector, the Prime Minister indicated that he had been directly involved in “resuscitating, revitalising, and saving” the energy sector, including the restructuring of Petrotrin.
The Prime Minister said that his Government had managed the country through the COVID-19 pandemic, and reduced waste in the budgeting process as well as corruption while modernising the tax collection system, and addressing violent crime and widespread criminality. He noted that the main challenges had been engaged, and he was satisfied that the Government was on the right track.
In sharp contrast, the National Security Minister, in his press conference, did nothing to reinforce the Prime Minister’s claim that the Government was successfully addressing the widespread criminality and violence. He added no new insights on the Strategic Service Agency (SSA) matter, saying it would be premature. Yet again, he limited his “constitutional responsibility.” How was this evidence that the Government was on the right track, as claimed by the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister may validly claim that Heritage was salvaged from the refinery’s losses by closing the refinery. His claim that his Government had revitalised the energy sector is dubious. Petrochemical plants remain closed, and the LNG plants are operating well below capacity.
Both Moody’s and the IMF reports speak of “windfall gains” from international price increases, gains that are entirely fortuitous and not due to any active policy intervention by the Government. Similarly, average daily natural gas production for 2023 amounted to 2.5 billion cubic feet, compared to an average of 3.8 billion cubic in 2015, a 35 per cent decline. Unpaid VAT refunds amounting to $6.5 billion are neither evidence of good budgeting, nor a modernised tax collection system.
To be credible and inspire confidence requires more than bravado and bombast. Trust will be broken if it comes to light that the leader was wrong, misinformed, or miscommunicated. One can only judge by the results. This is a difficult time that requires a brave new approach.