?Former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday sometime ago caused one of his many furors when he declared politics had its own morality. I agreed wholeheartedly and those who disagreed did so simply because of who said it. My belief in Panday's controversial stance was rudely rekindled while taking in the much anticipated address last Thursday evening by renegade People's National Movement Diego Martin West candidate in the May 24 general election, Dr Keith Rowley. While there were strong views from those who were satisfied and those who were not with the contents of his speech, his performance to me reeked of ungrateful- ness. It also gave credence to Mr Panday's assertion about politics and its own brand of morality and, indeed, I was in no way surprised in the overall stand taken by the man who sees himself as one day being the country's political CEO.
Nothing is wrong with that as I am sure the goal of most politicians is to settle themselves at the top of the heap, the same way other professionals would vie to be the top dog in their chosen fields. I knew beforehand that no way was he going to do anything to spoil whatever chances he believes the PNM has in retaining office in the soon-to-be-held polls. And I hope Rowley did not include me among those who he said were giving him "basket" to do damage to his party because of his still running impasse with his political leader, Prime Minister Patrick Manning, as he told the Sunday Express. I know he is not stupid, neither is he a fool, and it is precisely because of those reasons I concluded that he let down the thousands who (excluding his PNM supporters) supported him in the rift between himself and Manning.
The most defining moment of his address was his very clear warning to those who were so mindful that they should leave Mr Manning alone, while at the same time using coded language to telegraph that his public dispute with Manning was still very much alive. I found it unimaginable that Keith should seek to endorse someone to continue in such high office when for the last two years it appeared that person spared no effort to destroy his reputation, his career, and I dare say even perhaps his family life by levelling some very serious allegations which turned out to be completely without merit.
If the PNM should win the coming polls, would Dr Rowley feel proud to know that he contributed to the return of a leader who the nation had forced to appoint a commission of enquiry into the Udecott/Calder Hart affair, a scandal which Rowley said was ten times worse than the airport corruption under the UNC administration? The nation rallied around Rowley when he warned Manning about an out of control Udecott, which was spending the nation's patrimony willy nilly. The nation rallied around Rowley when, without concrete rhyme or reason, Manning threw his behind out of the Cabinet. Oh yes, the honourable Prime Minster kicked out his one-time very close friend and confidante on the flimsy grounds of "wajang" behaviour, the exact details of which only Manning and a handful of news carriers in the Cabinet are familiar with.
The nation rallied around Rowley after Manning indirectly implicated him in a $10 million matter which was later increased to $20 million at the Housing Development Corporation. Subsequent revelations vindicated the fiery parliamentarian from any wrongdoing. On these and other occasions the nation gave Keith moral sustenance even when the Prime Minister described him as a raging bull and one who gets very, very angry when he is seriously opposed, even by the Prime Minister himself. Who also can forget further parliamentary attacks by Manning who claimed that Rowley was completely out of control and ably supported by his (Manning) minions, including a former close political ally of Rowley, Works Minister Colm Imbert. So with all that bad blood which flowed and is still gushing between both men, it was inconceivable and indeed unfathomable that Rowley could make such a vehement warning to all and sundry to back off his dearly beloved and well respected leader, Patrick Manning.
Why is it so difficult for Rowley to say that he cannot endorse Manning as the best leader for the PNM but he respects and accepts the will of the majority of the party to have Manning lead it? After all, that is the core of democracy. No sensible person would have thought that Rowley was jumping off the MV PNM particularly at this time or that he could be goaded into so doing. Is it too much to expect Rowley to say that he remains committed to what he has said? That the Government may have closed the stable door after the horse bolted? And like all of us who have supported him in his campaign against corruption at Udecott, he continues to hold his nose until the police investigation into it bears results? But by his unambiguous admonition that Manning is sacred property and should not be touched by his political detractors, Rowley has made us believe that he is more interested in his personal political agenda than what is best for T&T.