PNM Still in Turmoil One Year After Election Loss
Leadership transition, economic strain, and unmet promises were cited as key factors in the defeat.
One year after its election defeat, the People’s National Movement (PNM) remains caught in internal turmoil, with party members and political observers still debating what went wrong and whether the loss was inevitable.
At the centre of the dispute is the way the party handled its leadership transition in the run-up to the polls, a move some argue alienated the base and weakened the PNM at a critical moment.
“The long and short of it”
One view is that the party’s problems were compounded by how Stuart Young was elevated to the role of acting prime minister.
“What went wrong was simply that Mr. Young was appointed as acting prime minister by his political leader, who maintained the position as political leader of the party. And that is the long and short of it all,” one critic said.
The leadership failed to appreciate the mood within the party’s membership.
“Both the political leader and then prime minister Young did not grasp the gravity of the PNM membership and their views and more or less felt that they were in a leadership position, and like shepherds, how they tell their sheep to go, the sheep will go.”
Calls have since grown for a wider, more participatory process in selecting leadership—an approach some believe could have changed the party’s trajectory, particularly given shifts in voter turnout between the 2020 and 2025 elections in Trinidad and Tobago.
“He was handed a bad hand."
Others, however, insist the election outcome cannot be pinned mainly on timing or internal succession drama. They argue the PNM faced deep, long-term public dissatisfaction that made a defeat likely regardless of who led the party into the election.
They point to nearly a decade of economic decline, including estimates of a 27 percent fall in real output and incomes, alongside persistent foreign exchange shortages and rising crime.
“There were all sorts of things that soured the mood of the public,” one analyst said. “And after ten years of what people thought were errors and displays of authoritarianism and so on, on top of a sour economy, the PNM had very little chance of winning the elections anyway, whether Rowley was in power or not. Stuart Young never really had a chance. He was handed a bad hand from the start.”
Unmet commitments, internal discontent
Additional criticism has focused on policy promises that were made but never fully delivered. Unfulfilled commitments, including constitutional reform, have been cited as reasons public trust may have eroded over time.
At the same time, observers acknowledge there was real dissatisfaction inside the PNM over the leadership transition itself. Still, even those who fault the internal handling of succession say the defeat reflected broader structural and economic pressures that had been building for years.
A familiar political pattern
Analysts also situate the result within a recurring theme in Trinidad and Tobago’s political history: governments often lose support after extended periods in office, particularly when economic downturns coincide with volatility in the energy sector.
For the PNM, the debate now appears to be less about whether multiple factors contributed to its downfall and more about which lesson the party chooses to take forward: reform the internal machinery, rebuild public confidence on policy delivery, or both.
Excerpts from various publications.