The educated betting says that Prime Minister Patrick Manning is about to lead his party, the People’s National Movement (PNM), to defeat in a national election carded for May 24. And if that does in fact happen, the lion’s share of blame would be Manning’s. Worse, he is as aware of this as are the great majority of the population who also know, as does he, that the party’s chances in the election would be infinitely better were Manning to remove himself from the leadership position to which he defiantly clings and give way to his presumptive replacement, the man he evidently discovered he loves to hate, former cabinet member Dr. Keith Rowley.

The PNM, ever since it made manifest the founding vision of Dr. Eric Williams in 1956, has continued to be the most stable political entity in the country’s history.That it has formed the government for 42 plus years of its existence underscores how deeply ingrained in the fabric of Trinidadian society the party has been. But Prime Minister Manning’s peculiar behavior, both in the run-up to and since he called an election some two and a half years before he was required to, has reduced the seemingly smooth-running party machinery to something of a new-age “Gong Show.” Never mind his widespread unpopularity across the country, Manning appears determined to incur even intra-party wrath in a despotic turn (hardly new, folks say) that surrounded the PNM’s candidate selection process. In several instances, Manning blocked candidates who had overwhelming support from their constituency organizations, occasioning a not uncommon threat from party supporters that they planned not to vote for the Manning-imposed candidate.

Upshot of all this contentiousness within the PNM (including full-blown drama centering on whether Manning would torpedo Rowley’s candidacy) is that the party has suddenly become this pathetic caricature, aping the kind of disarray that has been more typical of the several permutations of the opposition United National Congress (UNC) the PNM has faced over the years. Indeed, when the UNC earlier this year thought to put its house in order by ousting long-time boss Basdeo Panday, in one fell swoop it could claim being ascendant in the participatory democracy business, in contrast to Manning’s stolid defense of a PNM status quo that was clearly unflattering to him.

It is inconceivable that the PNM’s beleaguered leader would be clueless as to the party’s base being seriously compromised at this time. To be sure, there will continue to be hard-core PNM support, in spite of Manning’s antics. But across-the-board disapproval of the prime minister has given rise to what looks to be a sizeable group of usually dependable PNM voters who vow either not to vote or to throw their support elsewhere. Which means that Manning could either be counting on that body of unshakeable PNM adherents to be enough to carry the day; or he is betting on those antsy dissidents coming back home in time to make a difference; or maybe he is simply, as some suggest, abiding by the dictates of the much-referenced “prophetess” with whom he allegedly consults on these matters. Risky wagers all, one would think.

Such speculation is fault-ridden, in that it fails to properly account for the Panday-Bissessar factor on the other side; or, stated differently, fails to adequately compensate for how much Panday’s being at the UNC helm contributed to the PNM’s more recent election success. Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s assumption of the UNC leadership in January provided the party with a huge boost precisely when leadership of the PNM needed to be critically addressed – a non-starter of an issue where the current leader is concerned and an issue that evidently could find no traction among any heavy hitters in the party who could engage it. The latter, many contend, are really non-existent in the Manning machismo scheme of things.

The PNM suffered a devastating wipeout at the polls in 1986, when the party was widely written off as dead in the water. Manning’s emergence as party leader after that debacle, and the assertion he has never been hesitant to make about the hard work he put in to rebuild the party, presumably figure into any understanding he harbors of the PNM as personal fiefdom.That any such interpretation of the role could have been allowed to take hold without murmur, however, is to be regretted. A glance in the direction of the tragic isolation to which Panday has been unceremoniously consigned should be object lesson enough.

There’s been some talk of perhaps the “maximum leader” concept being put to rest in what has become a sizzling political year in Trinidad and Tobago. Panday’s dethronement seems to have taken care of any further mention of him in that context. And then there’s Manning, whose “maximum leader” stride seems more robust these days than at any time heretofore. We’ll find out soon enough if there’s been somewhat of a “Last Hurrah” dimension at work here.