PDM Rejects Premier’s Claims, Insists Party Leadership Remains United

The People’s Democratic Movement (PDM) has rejected Premier Washington Misick’s suggestion that Opposition Leader Edwin Astwood surrendered his constitutional responsibility to someone outside Parliament, insisting that its leadership speaks with one united voice.

• 

  PDM Leader Doug Parnell

• 

  Premier Hon. Washington Misick

• 

  Opposition Leader Hon. Edwin Astwood

In a strongly worded statement, the PDM said Astwood and party leader Douglas Parnell represent a position reached through the organisation’s internal democratic processes—not the wishes of any single individual.

“No one in the PDM answers to a single man,” the party declared, adding that the movement is governed by a constitution and led by officers elected at its National Convention.

According to the PDM, both Astwood and Parnell are authorised to communicate the party’s agreed positions. It described that arrangement as evidence of a functioning political organisation whose representatives are accountable to its membership.

The statement follows criticism from Premier Misick over the Opposition’s position on proposed constitutional changes, including measures that would expand the Executive and introduce parliamentary secretaries.

The PDM said it would not support those changes unless corresponding measures were introduced in Parliament to provide appropriate democratic balance and oversight.

It also defended Astwood’s right to revise his position after considering new information or observing what it described as revealing conduct by the Progressive National Party Government.

“Besides, the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to change his mind considering new information or revealing dynamics and behaviour by the PNP Government,” the party said.

The PDM maintained that the dispute is about policy and accountability rather than personalities or an internal power struggle. It argued that members who helped elect a party to office should be consulted on major policies and decisions.

The party also pointed to the Premier’s statement in Parliament that the Constitution belongs to the people, saying it agrees with that principle.

It said this was why the proposed expansion of executive power was reviewed by the PDM’s National General Council, which it described as the party’s highest authority outside its National Convention, before the Opposition changed its position.

The PDM argued that its internal review should not be portrayed as a hostile takeover or an attempt to undermine the Leader of the Opposition.

Turning its criticism directly toward Misick, the party questioned whether the Premier was in a position to lecture its officers about leadership and internal governance.

It claimed Misick had faced public disagreements concerning leadership within his own party and alleged that he had not been elected at what the PDM considered a properly constituted party convention. The statement invited the public to decide whether his criticism was motivated by principle or political convenience.

By contrast, the PDM said all its current officers were legitimately elected during a National Convention that attracted what it described as the largest turnout and strongest display of unity in the party’s history.

The party said Parnell, Astwood and the full slate of elected officers remain united, accountable to the membership and focused on national concerns.

Among the issues highlighted were healthcare, electricity costs, government expenditure and the justification for increasing the size of the Executive.

The PDM accused the Premier of attempting to shift the public conversation away from those matters and toward the internal workings of the Opposition.

“Mr. Misick would prefer the country talk about party mechanics,” the statement said. “The PDM will keep the conversation where it belongs—on the critical issues of the day affecting our people and finding effective ways to solve them.”

The exchange signals that debate over constitutional reform is likely to remain politically contentious, particularly over whether expanding the Executive would improve governance or concentrate additional power without sufficient parliamentary safeguards.

For the PDM, however, the immediate message is that its revised stance represents a collective party decision rather than a surrender of Astwood’s authority. The Opposition insists its leadership remains united as it presses the Government to explain why the proposed expansion is necessary.