Gail Alexan­der

Se­nior Po­lit­i­cal Re­porter

For­mer Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) gen­er­al sec­re­tary Ash­ton Ford says mem­bers are con­cerned about the “rushed” June 29 elec­tion con­ven­tion. He is al­so call­ing on the cur­rent lead­er­ship to re­con­sid­er the ex­clu­sion of par­ty groups’ par­tic­i­pa­tion in the process.

“The re­fusal to ex­tend the time­line for the con­ven­tion by even three months—un­til Sep­tem­ber—to al­low par­ty groups to par­tic­i­pate sug­gests that the con­ven­tion is be­ing rushed to en­gi­neer a pre­de­ter­mined out­come. This ap­pears to be yet an­oth­er top-down ma­noeu­vre ... ” Ford added in a let­ter to the news­pa­per yes­ter­day.

“I strong­ly urge the cur­rent lead­er­ship of our great par­ty to re­con­sid­er this ap­proach. Re­build­ing must be in­clu­sive. Par­ty mem­bers should not be side­lined or se­lec­tive­ly en­gaged. Our democ­ra­cy—and our par­ty—de­serve bet­ter.”

Ford added, “For the first time in the his­to­ry of the Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM), the par­ty will host a con­ven­tion with­out the par­tic­i­pa­tion of its par­ty groups. This was con­firmed by the re­cent­ly res­ur­rect­ed Pub­lic Re­la­tions Of­fi­cer, Faris Al-Rawi, who stat­ed that the Gen­er­al Coun­cil unan­i­mous­ly agreed to hold a Spe­cial Con­ven­tion on June 29, 2025.”

He not­ed that all po­si­tions on the ex­ec­u­tive will be con­test­ed.

“This de­ci­sion is per­plex­ing, es­pe­cial­ly giv­en the ex­pec­ta­tion that the par­ty is en­ter­ing a crit­i­cal re­build­ing phase. It is wide­ly be­lieved that more than 100,000 PNM sup­port­ers ab­stained from vot­ing in the last Gen­er­al Elec­tion—a clear sig­nal of dis­sat­is­fac­tion that de­mands a grass­roots re­sponse,” he said.

“Any stu­dent of pol­i­tics would un­der­stand that re­build­ing a par­ty be­gins with its foun­da­tion—the par­ty groups. These groups rep­re­sent the base, the ‘ground troops’ of the PNM, and are es­sen­tial to any ef­fort at re­or­gan­i­sa­tion.”

Say­ing many par­ty mem­bers are open­ly ex­press­ing their con­cern about this “rushed” con­ven­tion, Ford said, “If re­cent ex­pe­ri­ences—such as the ap­point­ment of the Op­po­si­tion Leader and se­nior of­fi­cers—have al­ready raised se­ri­ous ques­tions about trans­paren­cy and fair­ness, how can mem­bers be con­fi­dent in a one mem­ber/one vote process?

“The MPs in­volved in the ques­tion­able se­lec­tion of the Op­po­si­tion Leader have de­vi­at­ed from both the par­ty’s long­stand­ing tra­di­tions and the coun­try’s con­sti­tu­tion­al frame­work, which states that a ma­jor­i­ty of elect­ed mem­bers must in­form the Pres­i­dent of their pre­ferred leader. Their ac­tions have left a per­ma­nent mark on their po­lit­i­cal rep­u­ta­tions.

“Many of us are con­vinced that if all 13 MPs had been in­clud­ed in the process, Pen­ny Beck­les would have eas­i­ly emerged as the con­sen­sus choice.”

There was no re­sponse from Beck­les and oth­er PNM ex­ec­u­tive yes­ter­day.