A QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY



"Prime Ministers tend not to lose all their credibility in one go ... Rather it erodes in fits and starts amid accumulations of misstep and scandal".
The Economist - July 14th, 2011


The Government is facing a serious credibility problem that is largely of its own making on the question of the allleged plot to assassinate the Prime Minister and three other Ministers. This follows on the heels of other missteps and scandals such as the Reshmi Ramnarine affair, Caribbean Airlines, the Sat Maharaj/School Principal matter, and (what feels like) a host of others too numerous to count. Why they didn't let the Commissioner of Police announce the alleged plot is beyond me. At least if everything fell apart later (as it did) then he ... and not the Prime Minister ... would have taken the credibility "hit".

This supposed plot to kill the Prime Minister et al was a classic case of misstep that could and should have been avoided from the very beginning. First of all, assassinations of Prime Ministers and Presidents are usually carried out by one of two types: a "crazy" or a small group bent on regime change. But a group of 16 or so plotters is anything but small, and, assuming (though not accepting) that the allegations are true, then the sheer size of the group is practically a guarantee that the plot would leak out. The alleged plotters therefore could not have been very competent.

Put another way, something is missing from the information that we have been given, for the story that we have been given really doesn't make sense. The apparent aim of the assassinations was to cause panic and confusion in the society? Really? For what purpose? Who would benefit from this? For somebody has to benefit. You aren't going to do something as serious as this just to create confusion and panic ... unless you are crazy. And theer is no allegation that the alleged plotters are crazy. So, what could the purpose possibly have been?

The creator of Sherlock Holmes put these words in the mouth of his famous detective:

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

So, using Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's logic, what can we deduce from what we have been told? Remember, we were told (a) there was a plot to kill the PM, and
(b) the aim was to create panic and confusion.
Now, assuming (though again not accepting) that this is indeed true, who would possibly benefit from the resulting panic and confusion? Would it be ... could it be ... somebody who would hope that the UNC would turn to him(her) for guidance and leadership and that he(she) would then tell the Party who to appoint as Prime Minister and thus become the "kingmaker" with all the resulting power that flows from such a position because the new "king" would owe his position to the "kingmaker"? Who?

I agree that this scenario is highly improbable ... but you have to admit that it makes a certain sense if what we were told is true! I will also admit that there are other possible scenarios that I have not been able to imagine. But something has to make sense! And I find it difficult to believe that the Prime Minister lied to us about the plot. So, if she didn't, what is the piece of information that we are missing in order for the plot to make sense?