That mandate from heaven complex

When ANR Robinson was Prime Minister, someone was apparently cheesed off by what he perceived as Robbie’s arrogant leadership style and asked him whether he thought that he was God. Robinson’s reply was that he was not God but was only God’s messenger. Which leads me to the second paragraph of Dr Selwyn Ryan’s recent column entitled “Manning’s Woes.” Wrote Ryan, “In terms of political style, Manning is said to be arrogant and much too possessed of the view that he is the chosen vehicle by God to lead Trinidad and Tobago out of its political Gethsemane and into the promised land. Manning, some critics say, seems to be persuaded that he is not merely the messenger of God but perhaps God himself. Some also take umbrage at his penchant for speaking in the third person or as though he was the successor to Queen Victoria.”

As to Manning assuming the “third person” reference of British royalty to himself, Ryan might have added that it was one of Eric Williams’ idiosyncrasies which subsequent Prime Ministers, perhaps unconsciously and even uncomprehendingly, mimicked. Interestingly, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher drew a certain measure of press ridicule for referring to herself as though she was Britain’s “other Queen.” However, Ryan’s other observation of Patrick Manning harbouring a “mandate from heaven complex” is quite plausible and bears watching. Manning’s inane responses to concerns of “great pith and moment” are usually phrased in Biblical phraseology like, “Let not your heart be troubled” or “Put your trust in me and your hand in the hand of the man who hopes he can walk on the water.” PM Patrick Manning may, according to Dr Selwyn Ryan, feel that he’s unduly being made the target of criticism from almost every quarter. But he should take a deep breath and recognise that much of the criticism is not personal but directed at his leadership and/or management style, which he has brought upon himself.

Now although for obvious reasons Mr Manning may be our immediate concern, the fact of the matter is that, generally, we’ve not paid sufficient attention to the leadership styles of political leaders in the Caribbean. This is especially so since the constitutional arrangements are by and large inimical to representative governance as distinct from elected government. Grenada’s Keith Mitchell is one of the latest examples of playing Mr Big Stuff one day and being reduced to tears the next, still bazoodee and wondering what hit him. Assuming, but not admitting, that God has a hand or even a foot in our political affairs and the selection of our political leaders in the Caribbean, I’d be very anxious to know why, on their elevation to high office, they’re presented with four items: viz a shovel to dig their own political graves, a sword to deal with their political enemies and stab their political friends in the back, a magnifying glass to search for enemies and finally, a mirror to discern their worst enemy — which incidentally they never look in. Apparently, “those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.”

If I might digress a bit, when politicians are out of power we’re promised integrity (till it hurts), good governance (like you’ve never seen before) and transparency in yuh rukungkutung. We then proceed to elect “our meek and humble servants” to office, only to find out that we’ve unwittingly restored the monarchy. Soon enough, the media is told to mind its own business and is asked the rhetorical question: “Who elected you?” Of course the answer to that rhetorical question should be another rhetorical question: “Who made thee King over us?” Instead of the promised “transparency” what we observe is what Bertie Gomes once termed “the exegesis of obfuscation,” Don’t ask me what that means. Ask Lloyd Best.

Now there’s the perennial question of the independence of the judiciary and the protection that it affords the citizens against the arbitrary exercise of power by the “state” or its agents. As we know, there’s always been a hue and cry against interference into the judiciary from outside but newly appointed Industrial Court judge and former Deputy Chief Magistrate Deborah Thomas Felix has added that there should not also be interference from within either the magistracy or the judiciary and that the magistracy does not belong to the Chief Magistrate and the judiciary does not belong to the Chief Justice. Well I don’t think anyone can argue with that. She also chided Opposition parliamentarian Ganga Singh for abusing “parliamentary privilege” to characterise her new appointment as an instance of nepotism. We’ve probably grown to accept that level of irresponsibility from our parliamentarians.
However Kenneth Valley was guilty of a serious personal attack on the integrity and character of retired and respected senior public servant Reginald Dumas. Valley has since apologised publicly and attempted to undo the damage both to Mr Dumas’ reputation and Valley’s own credibility.

The matter of “parliamentary privilege” was, in my view, never intended for abuse and denigration of third parties who do not have legal recourse. This privilege has been abused by at least three Prime Ministers: Robinson, Williams and Chambers. In response to Robinson’s odious innuendos and half-truths re Sir Ellis Clarke, all Clarke could say was that he would fall on his knees and pray. Williams had Chambers read out Capt Hernandez’s medical record and psychological profile in Parliament in order to scuttle the man’s career and destroy him personally after other surreptitious means had failed. I’m well apprised of the details of this sordid and unconscionable affair and regard it as one of the most indefensible and reprehensible uses of political power and intrigue to swat a harmless individual, possibly to satisfy a senseless vendetta.