11/10/2025
The PNM Could Still Have Been in Power Today.
The People’s National Movement’s decision to call a snap election in April 2025 continues to fuel debate. By going to the polls early, the party surrendered months it did not have to, and that time may have made all the difference.
Under Trinidad and Tobago’s Constitution, a government has up to five years from the first sitting of Parliament to remain in office, after which Parliament dissolves automatically and an election must follow within 90 days. The PNM’s last term began with the first parliamentary sitting on 28 August 2020, putting their constitutional deadline at 27 August 2025, and elections would then have been due by November 2025. In short, the PNM legally had months of breathing room it did not use.
Instead, following the resignation of Keith Rowley, Stuart Young was appointed Prime Minister in March 2025 and quickly dissolved Parliament. The election was held on 28 April 2025, and the PNM lost to the United National Congress 26 seats to 13. Had the PNM waited, those months could have been used to help the public become more comfortable with Young’s leadership, to allow time for policies to resonate, and to reconnect in marginal constituencies. People could and would have still had their jobs, their stability, and their security under a government they already knew, rather than being forced into uncertainty under a sudden change.
One of the most striking acknowledgments of the PNM’s shortcomings came from Colm Imbert, the former PNM Party Chairman. At a public meeting in Diego Martin, Imbert openly admitted that the party does not listen, describing it as “stick break in our ears.” He further called the defeat the result of too many mistakes, pointing to errors in decision making and a failure to maintain connection with the grassroots.
His words underscore the central question many people keep asking: why did the PNM go early when they did not have to? By dissolving Parliament prematurely, they gave up time that could have been used to rebuild, reposition, and reconnect. Whether those extra months would have changed the outcome can never be known for sure, but what is clear is this: the PNM could legally have held office until August 2025, with an election required by November 2025.
Now, the UNC finds itself under the same national pressures: high crime, a troubling murder rate, and questions over the Dragon Gas Deal. Their tone in government is different from their tone in opposition, which some critics say reveals a degree of hypocrisy. Recent controversy, such as the arrest of Housing Minister David Lee, has also cast shadows on the administration. To add to this, the UNC has yet to present its first national budget. It is due but is being presented much later than originally expected, reflecting the adjustment challenges of a government that may not have anticipated taking office so suddenly after the snap election.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that many citizens had already grown weary of the PNM. For months leading up to the snap election, the public heavily scrutinized the government and called for change. Crime, the rising cost of living, and fatigue with long incumbency all contributed to voters’ desire to see the PNM gone.
This is why the debate remains complex. On one hand, the PNM could have stretched its term until later in 2025 and perhaps steadied itself. On the other, public anger was already building, and many were determined to vote them out. Now, with the UNC still finding its footing and yet to deliver a budget, people are asking whether the PNM’s early election call was a costly mistake — not just because the party lost, but because the country remains unsettled and uncertain about the future.
