Response to the Honourable Camille Robinson-Regis, Vice Chairman of the PNMDear Ms. Robinson-Regis,
Thank you for your recent statement. As someone who has long admired your unwavering commitment to the People’s National Movement (PNM) and to the development of our beloved nation, I feel compelled to respond with the sincerity and respect that you have always demonstrated in your public service.
Let me begin by acknowledging the tremendous contribution you have made over the years. Your loyalty, tenacity, and deep understanding of the Party’s ethos are beyond question. I was personally saddened that you chose not to seek an elected leadership position in this current internal contest, as your experience and perspective would undoubtedly have brought value to the deliberations.
I appreciate your recollection of the 1996 internal contest between Dr. Rowley and Mr. Manning. I, too, was part of that era, and while some questioned Dr. Rowley’s challenge due to his being brought into the Senate by Mr. Manning I 1986 ,I can attest—like you—that the campaign did not descend into acrimony. There was, instead, a recognition of a legitimate right to contest leadership and a mutual respect that preserved the dignity of the Party.
However, what must also be remembered is that Dr. Rowley himself was forthright and critical during that period—particularly in 2009 following his dismissal from Cabinet. He expressed his views with conviction, even while understanding the gravity of challenging the sitting Prime Minister. That expression of principle did not amount to disloyalty; rather, it was a demonstration of political courage. In fact, his critiques—though uncomfortable for some at the time—were instrumental in shaping a more accountable and introspective PNM. Today, many of us speak in that same spirit, not to denigrate, but to rebuild.
You noted with concern that this internal election appears to be turning into a period of bashing and division. I understand and respect your sentiment. However, I also believe that acknowledging the truth of our Party’s recent political decline—losing approximately one-third of our base—is not an act of disloyalty or ingratitude. It is an honest confrontation with the facts. Leadership requires not only celebrating our triumphs but taking full responsibility for our missteps. That includes difficult policy decisions, communication failures, and a leadership style that—by admission of some members of the outgoing executive—did not always prioritize consultation.
If we are to truly renew and fortify the PNM, we must first understand why a significant portion of our traditional base has disengaged. The last national election campaign was, fairly or not, a referendum on the future prospects Mr. Stuart Young as the PM and the legacy of Dr. Rowley. That campaign, which was orchestrated largely under the past leadership, was ultimately rejected by the membership. To ignore this reality would be an injustice to the democratic will of the country .
Moreover, I take issue with the idea that those who have served under Dr. Rowley should remain eternally grateful and silent. Public life is not a feudal contract. Many individuals, including Mrs. Beckles and others, were given renewed opportunity not solely by the Political Leader but because their constituencies or the national public demanded it. Let us never forget that in a democratic party, it is the people—not any one individual—who elevate and restore.
There is, indeed, a crucial difference between loyalty and blind loyalty. The former is essential; the latter is dangerous. Blind loyalty breeds groupthink, stifles innovation, and has been the undoing of many great institutions—both political and corporate. We must not allow that to be our fate.
I also agree entirely with your closing sentiment that “after the election, everyone remains a PNM.” Unity is not only desirable but necessary. The transformation process that lies ahead will require all hands on deck. However, unity cannot be demanded while suppressing reflection or silencing legitimate critique. Healing comes not from avoidance but from open and honest dialogue.
Yes, there are contradictions on all sides. Many who are now asking for a mandate were involved in the same decision-making as those they now criticize. But that is the nature of political evolution. The focus now must be on whether these individuals are ready to acknowledge past mistakes and lead differently going forward.
This election must not be about vilification or victimhood. It must be about charting a path to restore public confidence in the PNM and presenting a compelling, inclusive vision for the future. A leadership style that consults, that shares power, and that embraces difference is the only path forward if the PNM is to remain relevant and effective in a rapidly changing national landscape.
I end by reaffirming my respect for you, Ms. Robinson-Regis. Your voice remains an important one in this Party and in our national discourse. I look forward to working with all who are committed to truth, renewal, and to the democratic principles that have defined the PNM for generations.
With respect and commitment,
Robert Le Hunte
Former vice chairman of the PNM
Former Minister of Public Utilities
PNM Member since 1986
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ZKJBkANFW/
