By: Paul Sarran
April 25, 2025
Professor Hamid Ghany’s recent article, “Straight PNM, UNC Fight in Trinidad,” gives readers a detailed look into the upcoming 2025 General Elections using polling data and statistical analysis. It’s the kind of piece that’s informative, especially for political watchers who appreciate hard numbers. But while the data is solid, some of the conclusions feel a bit narrow, perhaps even a little too focused on the two-party narrative that has long dominated Trinidad and Tobago’s politics.
First of all, let’s give credit where it’s due. Professor Ghany’s use of his marginality formula to identify swing constituencies is quite impressive. It’s a method he developed back in 2002, and applying it to updated constituency boundaries and 2020 election data gives the polling some serious structure. The way he selected polling divisions, one strong for the PNM, one strong for the UNC, and one marginal, is also a smart move. It acknowledges that within a single constituency, voter preferences can vary wildly, and that matters.
Also worth noting is his recognition of how third parties are disrupting the usual political game. With the Patriotic Front (PF) and National Transformation Alliance (NTA) pulling a combined 13% support in Trinidad, it’s clear that voters aren’t necessarily sticking to the old UNC/PNM lines. In Tobago too, with the emergence of the Tobago People’s Party (TPP) out of the PDP and the PNM still holding a lead, the split-vote effect is real. Professor Ghany rightly points out that this fragmentation can be decisive, especially under the first-past-the-post system.
But here’s where the critique begins. For all its rich data, the article still frames the election as a “straight fight” between the PNM and UNC. That framing feels outdated, even contradictory, considering the poll itself shows that many voters are supporting alternatives or haven’t decided at all. It’s not just about two parties anymore. People are clearly looking for new options, whether out of frustration, hope, or disillusionment with the status quo.
Another issue is how the article handles leadership changes. Stuart Young, the new Prime Minister, is portrayed as carrying the baggage of Dr. Rowley’s government, which is fair. But there’s not enough exploration of how Young is being received on his own merit. Has he presented any bold new direction? Is he distancing himself from the past or doubling down on it? Those questions remain open.
Similarly, Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s recent moves to form broader coalitions are mentioned in passing, but there’s no deep dive into whether this is genuine renewal or just smart politics. Are these new alliances built on shared values, or is it a case of political survival? Voters probably care about that, and it would have added richness to the analysis.
Even in the section on Tobago, there’s a sense that the full story isn’t being told. The polling shows that the PNM leads, but the TPP and PDP are still very much in the mix. Professor Ghany touches on the leadership drama between Farley Augustine and Watson Duke, but doesn’t really dig into how that ongoing tension may have shaped public opinion. There’s also the fact that Augustine, as Chief Secretary, is polling higher than his party, which is intriguing. That disconnect could say a lot about how Tobagonians are distinguishing between individual leadership and party branding, but again, the article doesn’t explore that much.
Another point worth raising is how the piece treats undecided voters or those who prefer not to say. Professor Ghany notes that around 7% in Tobago either kept their vote private or were unsure, but doesn’t really analyze what that means. In such a tight race, those are the people who could swing the outcome, and their silence speaks volumes. Are they unsure because of a lack of trust, fatigue, or waiting to see what unfolds in the last days of campaigning?
All that said, Professor Ghany’s article does a good job of reminding readers that elections aren’t won on national averages; they’re won in the margins. And in marginal seats, even a small shift in third-party support can have a big impact. It’s a valuable reminder for both political parties and voters: don’t take any seat for granted.
Still, the bigger picture seems to be that these voters are slowly but surely pushing against the old two-party mold. Whether that means a true third-party breakthrough or just closer races with more variables remains to be seen. But it’s clear that many people want more than the usual back-and-forth between the UNC and PNM.
In the end, Professor Ghany’s data offers a useful snapshot of the political mood at a specific point in the campaign. But elections aren’t just about numbers. They’re about people, emotions, trust, and momentum, and the story is still unfolding. Instead of framing this as just another UNC versus PNM showdown, maybe it’s time we started listening more closely to what the voters are actually saying: that change might not come from the usual suspects.
So yes, the poll is helpful. It sets the stage. But the real story might be happening just outside the frame among the undecided, the disillusioned, and those who are ready to try something new.
(The author Paul Sarran is a Political Science Student at The University of the West Indies Global Campus in St Augustine.)
Email your opinions, letters and commentaries to: letters@caribmagplus.com