Confidence vote or referendum? - the Peter O'Connor column

I am astonished at the amount of campaigning which took place, on both sides, leading up to the PNM’s motion for a Vote of Confidence in the Prime Minister and the government. I am writing this before the formal debate begins, so my comments can be judged in hindsight this morning as you read it.

But this was the purpose of the whole pantomime anyway. From the time that Keith Rowley put it on the agenda, the PNM were talking about how it really was for public consumption rather that a meaningful, and possibly successful vote of no confidence in Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar. 

New PNM spokesman, Senator Faris Al-Rawi said so it practically those words. For the PNM it is clearly, and I suppose legitimately, an opportunity to sow confusion and dissent in the minds of their own dwindling support base. 

The fact that Rowley and his cohorts have “hit the streets” in the lead-up to the debate confirms that the whole thing is for public consumption, and not to be taken seriously within the parliament chamber.

The response of Kamla and her Peoples’ Partnership Government, but moreso from its UNC Arm, has been almost hysterical. And they have unfortunately taken the PNM “basket” and are responding in kind. So we are having election style public meetings all over the place. All overseas trips have been cancelled. And every member of each side will be present.

I think that we would have seen Patrick Manning wheeled into the parliament chamber, if not to speak, at least to vote. He would have received the usual parliamentary acclaim for this supposedly heroic act, as every speaker will of course feel bound to acknowledge his presence, such as it will be.

But however he came, wheeled or carried, I at least will ponder the irony of his presence there. 

I at least have not forgotten the last attempt at a Vote of Confidence in a Prime Minister. That was in 2010, when the UNC in opposition filed a Vote of Confidence in Manning. 

At the sitting before that debate was due to begin, Manning stood in the House and declared that parliament was being prorogued. He closed down the government, surrendered his office and his colleagues political powers because he was afraid of what would come out in that debate—about Calder Hart, about his preacherwoman, and the $30 million church he, as “Project Manager” was building for her in Guanapo. 

And building using monies passed through the account of the Diplomatic Centre, the palace he had the Chinese build for him. But he gave up the palace life, and his own Party in the face of revelations which he could not sit and hear in the House.

Kamla harbours no such fears. She faces only the charades of new-found PNM righteousness. So she will not run like Manning did.

This debate and vote is really just a lot of froth compared to what the 2010 debate would have revealed had Manning allowed it to go ahead. This government has no Calder Hart to defend, no UDECOTT supporting the corruption of the never-to-be finished stadium at Tarouba and elsewhere, no CLICO collapsing under its watch, and no major contract awards as yet for expensive but utterly useless vanity projects.

Yes, they do need to answer for a fair amount of bungling and incompetence. But, and the PNM should be the first to admit this, few thought that they would have lasted this long. 

They were, admittedly, a “pick-up side”, pulled together to battle and win an election, without time for reflection or long range planning. But they have held our country together, as wounded as it was when they took it over. 

While some of their bungling was self inflicted, coming as usual from the inherent arrogance of our people pushed into high office, much was also the result of malfeasance and sabotage within a Public Service that largely believes that the Public Service is an arm of the PNM.

So, although the Vote of Confidence will be decided by forty one members of parliament, and while their votes were always cast in stone regardless of the arguments presented, people’s attention was grabbed by the side-shows: the public meetings and robber talk and of the feigned righteousness of the bringers of the motion, who would have us forget who they were, who they are, and who they will forever be.

My hope in all this, vain as it may sound this Sunday morning, was that our elected leaders would have discovered maturity, and been inspired by the great responsibility they carry, which we gave them to carry, and debate the issues as proper parliamentarians and not as bravado badjohns and jamettes.

This is a parliamentary issue, not a referendum.