Criticism not always bad talk

Mr Manning may have been directing his words particularly toward Opposition politicians, who do often make criticisms of Government policies based on thin or no evidence. But, inasmuch as the PNM used similar strategies when it was in opposition, the party can hardly claim the moral high ground now that it is in office. Indeed, there is no little irony in Mr Manning criticising persons who spout rhetoric based only on "narrow self-interest, expediency, or even the need for self-aggrandisement."

Additionally, the Prime Minister was being rather disingenuous in taking to task those who criticise the nation, since what really had him offended was those who criticise the Government. After all, few people actually criticise Trinidad and Tobago as a nation.

Instead, criticism is usually directed at particular institutions or leaders who, in the critics’ opinion, are harming the nation. But it is a besetting fault of Mr Manning and the party he leads that they often fail to distinguish between State, government, and electoral organisation.

What was especially ironic about Mr Manning’s comments, however, is that many citizens perceive him as especially impervious to criticism — whether the criticisms are justified or not. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by his bull-headed resolve to go ahead with the Tarouba sporting complex. This project has been criticised from all quarters. Not one Government Minister has been able to offer a convincing rationale for spending $850 million on this venture, with Mr Manning himself providing the most ludicrous reasoning — that the complex can double as a natural disaster shelter. He has even dismissed all the criticism by setting up a straw man — saying that there would have been no protest at all had the complex been sited in the north.

Such intransigence on this issue is part of a pattern.

When he first broached the idea of a new Parliament building and relocation of the Prime Minister’s office into the Red House, for instance, Mr Manning faced a similar barrage of criticism. Yet, from comments he has dropped on occasion, it is clear that he has not abandoned this idea, either. And there are many more minor decisions he had been criticised for, and apparently abandoned, only to resurrect them years later.

This apparent inability to attend to contrary opinion is a worrisome trait in any leader, but especially in a Prime Minister. The tendency in any society, but especially ours, is for political leaders to be surrounded by sycophants. Nor do our leaders seem to ensure that they will have around them at least a few persons who will speak truth to power. In this scenario, a Prime Minister will not always — or even often — receive the best advice.

The fact is, however, that there are persons in our society who offer criticism because their main motive is to solve problems. Unfortunately, such persons rarely have the ear of those leaders who most need to hear them.

If Mr Manning institutes such a practice, not only would our politicians perform better, but he himself would become a far more effective Prime Minister. In the meantime, given that he quotes the Bible so frequently, perhaps Mr Manning should bear in mind the old injunction about being aware of the beam in one’s own eye before criticising the splinter in others.