Saturday, April 26 2008

The public has reacted sceptically to Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s explanation of his firing of Diego Martin West MP Keith Rowley. Indeed, Mr Manning has raised more questions than he has answered, ranging from how he runs his Cabinet to how Udecott is spending taxpayers’ money.

Last Thursday, a day after Dr Rowley was relieved of his portfolio as Trade and Industry Minister, Mr Manning sitting alone at a media briefing told the media and the nation that Dr Rowley had been removed for “atrocious behaviour.” Mr Manning was not present at the incident where Dr Rowley allegedly expressed his views over the way Udecott was conducting its affairs. But, having received a complaint, presumably from unnamed Ministers, Mr Manning polled five out of seven Ministers on their opinion of Dr Rowley’s behaviour. Most of the Ministers, according to Mr Manning, thought Dr Rowley’s behaviour inappropriate, while one said he/she wasn’t offended.

That one exception raises the first question, for it appears that subjectivity was at work in the judgement of whether Dr Rowley’s alleged chewing out was appropriate or not. Dr Rowley himself has categorically denied using obscene language or making violent gestures. And, as anyone who has seen him in action in Parliament knows, Dr Rowley’s manner can indeed be quite aggressive. But aggressive does not necessarily mean inappropriate — unless Mr Manning thinks that everyone should always use the calm demeanour he himself typically presents to the public.

This leads to the second question, for it seems rather extreme for the Prime Minister to fire a senior Minister based on the non-unanimous opinion of Ministers, most of whom may very well base their account on what they think Mr Manning wants to hear.

But, even if the opinion was unanimous and even if Dr Rowley did behave like a “wajank”, as one Minister allegedly described him, would that still justify firing him? And why not let Dr. Rowley confront his accusers?

Mr Manning has argued that, just as the Speaker of the House did not tolerate unsuitable behaviour from Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday, so too should the Cabinet not accept unsuitable behaviour from its members. But the two issues are not equal. Mr Panday, after all, made his display in an open chamber televised to the entire nation. Dr Rowley’s alleged behaviour happened behind closed doors, and did not disrupt anything save the actual meeting which was going on — and that disruption was only to the extent that Dr Rowley asked the public servants present to leave.

Given the context, it is therefore no surprise that Mr Manning was emphatic in denying that his removal of Dr Rowley’s Ministerial portfolio was motivated by personal vindictiveness. As evidence, he pointed to his previous appointments of Dr Rowley to key portfolios such as Planning, Housing, and then Trade and Development. But this assumes that Mr Manning had a choice, in the sense that he could have fobbed off a senior Minister and leading PNM member like Dr Rowley with a minor portfolio without consequences.

So, whether Mr Manning was being vindictive or not, it is clear that he could only have taken this action now because he feels politically secure. In fact he asked reporters if he looked insecure to them. On that front, though, the PNM leader may be miscalculating. Between high crime, inflation, and now food shortages, many citizens, including PNM supporters, are increasingly disenchanted with Mr Manning’s leadership. And better men than he have discovered that power is not easily retained when the people come to believe that their interests are not being served.