TT suffers from culture of maximum leadership

THE EDITOR: Leadership in the country which goes beyond politicians and gender is the root of most of our national problems and we as a society need to face reality and look at our leadership culture very seriously. During the public debate on the resignation of the then Minister of Labour, some of the spin doctors criticised Mr Achong for disregarding the concept of collective responsibility, but the reality is, however, you cannot have genuine collective responsibility in any organisation, committee, cabinet or whatever, where the culture of maximum leadership is dominant. Collective leadership is the only vehicle through which we can achieve true and meaningful collective responsibility. Collective leadership is a democratic style of leadership that does not mean that everybody is the leader, but it does mean that the leader is just the head of the team and not the team itself.

It is only when we know what is wrong we will be able to fix anything. Maximum leadership — best known to the man in the street as “one man rule” — goes way back in the history of colonisation and the manner in which people were governed. I first recognised the practice in the trade union movement and soon realised that it was a custom upon which the movement developed and it became eventually the main contributor to the dis-unity that have plagued the labour movement, weakening its strength and effectiveness as a result. The labour movement, however, did not invent the culture of one man rule, it was inherited from our colonial Governments and, on gaining independence our politicians made one man rule the corner stone of our constitution — via Prime Ministerial Government instead of Parliamentary Government — giving new life and form to Massa, whose days we thought was done.

My views on maximum leadership are not focused on leaders at this moment, but more so on the adverse effect the culture has on the democratic development of organisations and institutions in Trinidad and Tobago. It is a culture that alienates people, causes division and creates cliques that do not express views that are in opposition to those of the leader who are usually skilled in manipulating his/her colleagues. Member of Parliament, Mr Fitzgerald Hinds in one of his newspaper columns under the heading “Principle or Nothing” stated the following: “One recalls 1996, when Dr Rowley was writing PNM and the country’s political history, I saw him ascribed an epitaph with which he walked ever since. I respected that he simply refused to be buried. He was demonised, cursed, scandalised and even told to go back to Tobago. Yet he maintained the dignity that the very PNM (and presumably his parents) taught him, in the face of short-sighted and political hellfire.”

The two most dangerous aspects of the culture are that they serve the interest of a minority as against the majority and those who oppose the policies of the minority, cling to a false belief that they can stay within the organisation and fight for change — which is nothing more than wishful thinking — and should they remain silent, they are half way to joining the self-serving minority to support policies they previously opposed. In all organisations, there are good men and women prepared to serve with pride and dignity in the interest of the majority and should never be demonised, cursed and scandalised because of a leadership culture that denies them the right to disagree. If members of a political party observe a “creed” to suffer in silence, but never, never go against the party in public, many people may see that as being noble. However, what is not seen is that the “creed” has nothing to do with principle, democracy or being a team player. It is simply enforcing the maximum leadership culture that make those who adhere to the “creed” unconscionable human beings stripped of their moral and spiritual values. I always consider history to be a great teacher with an abundance of lessons and references that can help us all to make good judgments on many issues.

It is no secret that when the PNM was in Government during 1991-1995, there was a strained relationship between Mr Patrick Manning the then Prime Minister and Mr Morris Marshall who was a Minister in the Government and General Secretary of the Party. It is on record in many publications of the “Trinidad and Tobago League of Concerned Citizens” the following reply from Mr Manning to the media in 1995, on his relationship with Mr Marshall: “Mr Marshall had the tendency to wish to challenge the leader from time to time, for whatever reason, and you can do that, that’s fine. “If there was any difficulty in our relationship, it was because I was not prepared to stomach too much of that. You see, you challenge my view, that’s fine, but if you ever challenge my authority, I have a problem with that.” The quotation above may help to keep someone out of trouble.

WYCLIFFE MORRIS
Former Director of Education
NUGFW