Leading up to the New National Party (NNP) convention on December 15, Grenada’s political stage has been reignited with echoes of betrayal and power struggles reminiscent of the party’s contentious past.

Dr. Keith Mitchell, the long-standing leader of the NNP and former Prime Minister, is accused of underhanded tactics to block Assistant General Secretary Peter David from contesting the leadership.

The situation parallels Mitchell’s controversial ascent to power in the 1980s, a move still branded by many as one of the most infamous political betrayals in Grenadian history.

Mitchell’s recent podcast debut, Le We Hear From Doc, was ostensibly meant to reflect on his political legacy.

Instead, it has spotlighted the embattled leader’s divisive approach to leadership transitions.

Critics argue that Mitchell’s defense of his rise against former NNP leader Herbert Blaize decades ago mirrors the same behind-the-scenes maneuvering he is accused of orchestrating against David today.

Secrecy, broken promises, and political brinkmanship marked Mitchell’s rise to NNP leadership in the late 1980s.

Despite pledging loyalty to Blaize, Mitchell contested the leadership, citing Blaize’s declining health and the need for change within the party.

On his podcast, Mitchell recalled suggesting that then-Deputy Prime Minister Ben Jones take over the leadership but claimed Blaize rebuffed the idea.

“I told [Blaize] to appoint Ben Jones, and I would support him,” Mitchell recounted. “The only question [Blaize] asked me was, ‘What do you want?’… Ben Jones told me, ‘Blaize ain’t going no way.’”

Mitchell described his eventual decision to challenge Blaize as “painful” but necessary to prevent the NNP from fracturing.

Yet, many saw his actions as a calculated betrayal, driven by ambition rather than party unity.

Fast forward to 2024, and Mitchell stands accused of wielding the same power-centric tactics to sideline Peter David, a rising force within the NNP who has openly signaled his intention to contest the leadership.

David, widely regarded for his organizational skills and fundraising acumen, was pivotal in the NNP’s landslide victory 2018.

David’s bid for leadership comes from Mitchell’s repeated public declarations of retirement.

In contrast to Mitchell’s secretive rise, David has twice written to the party’s executive to announce his intentions formally.

However, his candidacy has been met with resistance, as Mitchell reportedly orchestrates a campaign to discredit him.

Mitchell’s allies have insinuated that David is attempting to “hijack” the party, leveraging fear and manipulation to undermine his candidacy.

This public vilification has divided the NNP and raised questions about Mitchell’s commitment to fostering democracy within the party.

The parallels between Mitchell’s past and present actions have not gone unnoticed.

In the 1980s, Mitchell broke a promise to Blaize, citing a need for party reform.

Today, critics accuse him of blocking reform by clinging to power, stifling the emergence of new leadership within the NNP.

Mitchell’s refusal to allow a democratic contest has drawn sharp rebukes from political analysts and party insiders alike.

Some argue that his actions risk alienating the party’s base and jeopardizing the NNP’s future electoral success.

As the NNP convention approaches, the stakes are high for both Mitchell and the party.

For Mitchell, it is a fight to preserve his legacy as the architect of the NNP’s past successes.

For the party, it is a battle to determine its future direction and whether it can overcome internal discord to present a united front to voters.

Mitchell’s attempts to frame his leadership decisions as acts of necessity may resonate with some loyalists.

However, for others, the unfolding drama serves as a reminder of the dangers of unchecked power and the need for transparent, democratic processes within Grenada’s political landscape.

The question remains: will the NNP choose to move forward under new leadership, or will it remain mired in the shadow of Mitchell’s enduring—and increasingly contentious—political influence?