On September 13, 1955, Dr Eric Williams, in a public address in Woodford Square, laid out the founding principles of the still-nascent People’s National Movement (PNM): “The spectacle of individuals...opposing party decisions, or publicly dissenting from them, is as ­notorious in Trinidad and Tobago as the sun at noonday...Such behaviour is contrary to the true party spirit. A proper party cannot possibly condone it.”In their current conflict, San Fernando East MP Brian ­Manning and the PNM executive headed by chairman ­Marvin Gonzales are both flouting the disciplinary rules outlined by Dr Williams 70 years ago. Mr Manning has accused the PNM’s political leader, Pennelope Beckles, of unwillingness to tackle a “corrupt element” within the party. The dispute led to the resignation of the entire San Fernando East executive on Monday.Ironically, a similar disruption in party discipline was committed by Dr Williams himself in the campaign for the 1976 general election. In several speeches, Williams attacked leading members of the PNM, describing five of them as “millstones”, and saying, “The electorate wishes no part whatsoever of the majority of the PNM incumbents and nominees, no matter who else is satisfied with them.” He described some of the party’s nominees as lacking integrity, and accused the party’s then-general secretary, Nicholas Simonette, of “a disdain for traditional electioneering and political parties”.In response, Simonette, in a newspaper article, wrote, “If those words described anyone, it the Prime Minister himself who did nothing to ensure that his proposals were considered and adopted by the General Council...,” criticising Williams for publicising party matters without permission from the council.So the present PNM imbroglio is not unprecedented, down to Manning asserting on Monday on i95.5FM (part of the Caribbean Communications Network group): “The vast majority of people who support the party want these people gone.” Gonzales, in turn, has described Manning as “going down a very dangerous path”, saying, “It is not good for the interest of the PNM and we are asking him to allow good sense to prevail...while the party undertake its processes to resolve these matters...”In 1976, opponents of the PNM confidently predicted the collapse of the party. But the PNM weathered that storm, and the current conflict is far less intense and far-reaching. Applying Occam’s razor, the various statements from PNM spokespersons should be seen as internal political contestation and all the specific issues, from corruption to indiscipline, as mere devices in the struggle for power.In this context, the attitude of PNM leader Beckles is key. So far, she has decided to remain above the fray. But does her silence indicate authority or inability to mediate the dispute? Is she, as some believed Dr Williams did in 1976, playing dead to catch corbeau alive—ie, letting her internal opponents reveal themselves to solidify her position as political leader?Whatever is really going on, it is better for the country that the PNM iron out these disputes well in advance of the 2030 election.