Sep 14
Feature Address On The Occasion Of The Celebration By The National Council Of Indian Culture (NCIC) Of The 47TH Anniversary Of The Independence Of Trinidad And Tobago,Divali Nagar Auditorium, Chaguanas, Saturday, August 29, 2009, 6.30 p.m.
I thought I would say something this evening about the state of our Republic as we prepare to enter the 48th year of our political independence. It is no secret that our population, whatever the socio-economic or other status of its members, is on the whole unhappy, or at the very least uncomfortable, with the condition of Trinidad and Tobago. We have specific concerns about crime, or race, or the cost of living, or the health service, or the carnage on the roads, and so on. But driving all these concerns is one major factor among others: the tarnished quality of governance….
The importance and timeliness of Reginald Dumas’ remarks cannot be exaggerated. This sober, incisive, objective analysis of “the tarnished quality” of governance in T&T, very commendably, pulls no punches. It summarizes frankly, forcefully, courageously, and with great clarity, the grave danger which the steady, perceptible drift towards increased centralization of political power in the country poses to the entire society. The deliberate, pernicious use of coded language by politicians carefully calculated to appeal to ethnic fears and insecurities and to keep the population divided, the better to rule and control, is most deplorable. Reggie’s remarks specifically address the situation in T&T but, apart from certain features of the T&T situation which might not necessarily apply to other Caricom countries, they are nonetheless very pertinent to the problems of governance in the region.
It is quite true, as Reggie Dumas states, that politicians everywhere, including those in the advanced democracies, often let power go to their heads and consider themselves the fount of wisdom, which make them contemptuous of the people who elected them and, also, intolerant of any criticism. But there are built-in mechanisms in the advanced democracies which curb and sanction such hubristic tendencies, not least of all, the electorate’s conviction that it is their duty and responsibility to sanction leaders who abuse their office or the people’s confidence. That nemesis overtook the two politicians in the North whom Reggie Dumas cited in that very respect – George Bush and Tony Blair. Such mechanisms are generally lacking in the relatively underdeveloped democracies in the South, including ours in the Caribbean.
Regrettably, as so well described in the address, voters in T&T appear to have largely abdicated that crucially important responsibility, which is so necessary for reigning in dictatorial tendencies of political leaders in power and for ensuring both responsible and responsive governance. In place of the conviction which animate voters in advanced democracies, namely, that they have a duty to scrutinize and sanction, if necessary, their government’s actions, in T&T, there appears to be “the conviction that the government knows best, that the voters have placed their faith in the government”™s ability and willingness to think and act for them, that the government must lead from the front, that the government”™s leader is all-seeing and all-knowing, and that serious consultation with the voters who put the government there in the first place is therefore unnecessary and, indeed, a sign of weakness.” That is a very dangerous situation indeed – one that is most propitious to dictatorial government. Reggie has lucidly analysed some of the techniques which our political leaders employ to attain their goal of acquiring/retaining power. He has also very deftly deconstructed the language that they use to lull the people into a false sense of security, namely, that their present and future well-being, their rights, their economic security, and their basic freedoms are safe in the government’s hands. “Not to worry” appears to be the subliminal message which the carefully selected, innocent-looking language of our political leaders is designed to convey,”we will take good care of you”.
Reggie noted Plato’s (and Machiavelli’s) cynical advice to rulers on the political usefulness of not telling the truth to their people “for the good of the state”, and the concern Tony Blair expressed about the way in which the truth one tells can become a weapon in the hands of one’s political oppponents, one that could be used against the politician who speaks the truth. Those are lessons which political leaders, down the ages, have learnt. But here again, there are mechanisms in place in the advanced democracies which can curb and sanction such practices. It is a serious breach of British parliamentary rules for any MP to knowingly lie to parliament. Those rules, and the sanctions against their breach, do not prevent MPs from being economical with the truth but they do prevent outright lies. Moreover, the British public do not like being lied to by their leaders and they will sanction, come election time, any leader who imprudently does so on an important matter.
Here again, is ample demonstration that the most important bulwark against breach of public trust, incompetent or bad governance, and the slow slide into dictatorial or illiberal rule, which Reggie so graphically described in his address, is a vigilant, activist, concerned, committed citizenry who insist on maintaining a close scrutiny of the functioning of their government, holds it to account for its actions, and does not hesitate to make it pay the ultimate price at the polls for any breach of public trust. Such a breach would surely include lies and deceit.
The average citizen cannot reasonably be expected to detect all the strategems and techniques which self-serving politcians adopt to fool the public, or decipher the coded language which governments often use to manipulate or dupe the people. It is the responsibility of the more knowledgeable individuals in the society – intellectuals, academics, journalists, and others – who would not be so easily fooled by such political chicanery, to expose the techniques that political leaders employ to dupe voters. It is also their duty, as responsible citizens, to deconstruct, for the less knowledgeable sections of the electorate, the type of insidious, democracy-undermining language (such as ” constitutional reform”, ” local government reform”) which Reggie perceptively described in his address. If they remain silent in that respect, they would be complicit in the attempts of political leaders to acquire “greater control of the institutions of the state and a consequent enhancement of personal and political power.”
There is another very important dimension of the truth/falsehood issue in politics – one that I shall illustrate by an observation of Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “It is not because the truth is too difficult to see that we make mistakes. It may even lie on the surface; but we make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions”” especially selfish ones.” Even when the truth “lie[s] on the surface”, or when we can perceive it behind the falsehoods our politicians feed us, we tend to prefer to turn a blind eye. We do not want our complacency disturbed, so it is more comfortable for us to pretend that it is not really important, or that we should leave it to others to take action, or that if we do nothing the problem will eventually go away. Reggie referred to the racial insecurity which all in the society feel, in varying degrees – an insecurity that is fanned and sustained by the deliberately divisive statements of politicians and a few others in the society.
I agree totally with the views Reggie expressed on the inadequacy of the proposals put forward in the Newsday Race resolution editorial. I also support his suggestion for conducting an in-depth analysis of the structure of the society in order to improve our understanding of its structure, its features, and its various elements, which would enable us to deal more effectively with the fundamental issues facing us. I note, with relief, Reggie’s comment that “people are more questioning, less ready to accept at face value the soothing statements of officialdom, more inclined not only to criticise but also to offer solutions.” The latter initiative (underlined) is a most heartening development for it not only suggests a greater willingness, on the part of many in the country, to exercise their right and duty as citizens to scrutinize and criticize the actions of the government but also an increased confidence in their own capacity to identify solutions for the country’s problems rather than leave it in the hands of political leaders.
In the address, Reggie exhorted the average man and woman in the country not to be intimidated. While acknowledging that more and more citizens have been using their voices, he urged that they not only continue to do so but also turn up the volume and “insist on genuine consultation with, and accountability from, those they have placed in political office.” That advice is extremely important, for, as I argued above, a vigilant, activist citizenry is the most important bulwark against illiberal or dictatorial rule. But I would be surprised if Reggie’s advice is heeded by citizens, sufficient in number to make a real difference. Why? A principal reason is likely to be the racial insecurity that Reggie identified as affecting, in varying degrees, all in the country.
Like personal or cultural self-confidence, insecurity cannot be compartmentalized. When it affects/infects an aspect of one’s life, it invariably spills over into all other aspects. It invades one’s entire being; it colours, and often distorts, one’s outlook on life as well as one’s view of others; it makes one timorous and reluctant to take any initiatives; it is confidence destroying. In that state of mind, one would more readily perceive threats to one’s identity, to one’s sense of self, and to one’s self-esteem coming from one’s personal or social environment. Far from reaching out to others in the community to come together to challenge the political authority (an act that is absolutely necessary in any effective attempt to rein in the political power), one would tend to withdraw into oneself. Far from raising one’s voice in protest or insisting on accountability from those in power, one would want to hunker down in one’s personal bunker, keep one’s head down in an effort to draw no attention to oneself. For fear of the possible consequences of any activism on one’s part, “make no waves” would become one’s guiding watchword.
In such a frame of mind, there would be a perfectly natural reluctance, on the part of all but a very tiny minority of citizens, to make any public critical comment or pursue any action to which those in power might take umbrage. Our very human self-preservation reflex/instinct might even lead us to “misread” the situation – to “make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions “” especially selfish ones.” Such pervasive feelings of insecurity might perhaps be the reason (this is only a hypothesis) why, in the two weeks since Reggie’s crucially important address has been posted, it has attracted no other comment, not a single one, despite the fact that those who normally visit Norman’s site are presumably members of the country’s educational elite and, as such, should normally feel more secure than the average citizen. If that hypothesis is correct, ordinary citizens would be even more unlikely than members of the elite to take any action which would draw attention to themselves. Consequently, I consider that, in addition to Reggie’s proposals, commendable as they are, more far-reaching, fundamental measures are required to effectively address the problems of governance that he has so well described.
The deplorable drift towards the centralization and personalization of political power in the country, the ethnic tensions and rivalries that are fomented by divisive statements from our political leaders, and the racial insecurities which such statements generate, are all byproducts of the unsuitable model of democratic government we inherited from the North. It is a model that was developed specifically for the homogeneous societies of 18th and 19th Europe, which remained so until the 1960s. Moreover, even after more than two generations of immigration from the South, European societies are still more than 90% homogeneous. The European democratic model was developed for the nation-state, as it was then conceived. The nation-state concept was based on four essential sociological premises – ethic homogeneity, one shared religion, one shared language, and fixed national frontiers. Like the overwhelming majority of countries in the South, Trinidad and Tobago does not meet all those premises. Many, if not most countries in the South, particularly in Africa, meet none at all.
The first three premises were designed to avoid any deep, unbridgeable divisions in nation-state societies which would present a major obstacle to achieving national unity. Ethnicity, religion, and language were justifiably considered the most formidable of such social divisions. Of the three, ethnicity is normally the most unbridgeable divide, except in the case of Islam where religion has usually proven to be more so. Where ethnicity is not a factor, religion and language compete for second place, depending on which of the two the people in the society concerned have invested their identity. In Canada, the Quebecois have invested their identity in language whereas the people of Northern Ireland have invested it in religion. No one is unaware of the enormous problems which the derogation of just one of the fundamental premises of the nation-state has caused in both those countries.
Those three fundamental principles of nation-state formation have proven to be an absolutely necessary requirement for the proper functioning of a parliamentary system based on majority rule, particularly where the electoral system operates on a first-past-the-post principle. The system of majority rule on a first-past-the-post assumes the existence of a society with no deep, unbridgeable social divisions, such as those presented by religion, caste, tribe and language; one whose shared national values would permit political parties to draw their membership and political support from all sections of the society. It is the absence of such divisions which permits the creation of political parties capable of presenting to the electorate credible political programmes that reflect national interests and concerns and which could attract the support of voters from across the entire social spectrum.
Those shared national values also permit the proper functioning of a system of majority rule. They generate sufficient social trust to persuade political parties, which lose national elections, to concede full political power to the winning party, confident that not only their turn to rule would come but also, and most importantly, that that power would not be abused by the ruling party which had won the exclusive right to exercise it. Because of the existence of effective checks and balances to the exercise of political powern which are anchored in, or buttressed by, social and cultural values as in the UK for example, the losing parties are also persuaded that their interests and those of their supporters would not suffer unduly under a system of majority rule. The regular alternation of political power is thus ensured by the government and the opposition observing “the rules of the game” and faithfully playing their allotted political roles. It is in such conditions, and only in such conditions, that a system of majority rule can function properly.
The degree of social trust required for the proper functioning of a system of majority rule does not appear to exist in most divided societies. Deep communal cleavages prevent the give-and-take that is so necessary for democratic politics. When the cleavages in a society cut across one another, thus allowing an individual’s interests on different issues to be aligned with those of various groups, most individuals find themselves part of a winning majority on some issues and part of a losing minority on others. That occurs with sufficient frequency in most Western democracies that their citizens see no real disadvantages in majority rule. However, in societies where deep communal cleavages prevent such ad hoc cross-cutting alliances, majority rule is discredited in the view of large sections of the population, thus depriving it of any legitimacy.
Furthermore, the majority rule system system (the one we unfortunately inherited) is particularly unsuited to countries with large ethnically-different communities because electoral politics in that type of society invariably tend to assume an ethnic character. Such a development is particularly dangerous in a winner-takes-all system where a single political party, dominated by one ethnic group, may hold exclusive power for successive electoral cycles. That situation can generate a great deal of frustration on the part of ethnic or other social groups who find themselves excluded from political power for more or less long periods of time, which could adversely affect the country’s political instability and possibly undermine its democratic system.
As the French academic sociologist, Henri Mendras, has correctly observed, “a system which permits half of the electorate plus one to govern the other half of the electorate minus one, with the consent of the latter, is one that no society and no civilization other than that of Western Europe and the United States has considered legitimate in the past two centuries”. (European Europe: The Sociology of Western Europe, 1997). Because of the multicultural nature of their societies (multi-ethnic, plurilingual, multi-religious), virtually all societies in the Africa and Asia traditionally practised power-sharing and inclusive government, rejecting exclusive rule by any group in the society. Information on Pre-Columbian America is too vestigial to permit any reasonably accurate assessment in that respect.
Drawing on his West African experience, Arthur Lewis observed that much of Western political philosophy becomes irrelevant when applied to West Africa and he emphasized the need for special democratic institutions which are adapted to the plural (multi-cultural) society. Consequently, he proposed a form of power-sharing democratic governance for Africa, which subsequently came to be called ” consociational” democracy. Lewis concluded that the surest way to kill the idea of democracy in a plural society was to adopt the electoral system of first-past-the-post. He insisted that societies with social cleavages required a system that ” will give minorities adequate representation, discourage parochialism, and force moderation on the political parties.” (Politics in West Africa, 1965).
The Western parliamentary system of majority rule is so unsuitable to multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies that it is extremely unlikely that that particular system of government would have evolved, in the manner and in the form it has, if the populations of Western European countries had been divided along ethnic lines, or even if they were multi-cultural in a non-ethnic sense. There is no better illustration of this than two multi-cultural European countries – Belgium and Switzerland. Departing from the classic parliamentary system of majority rule, both countries have adopted political systems which ensure that every cultural group has a say in governing the country. Having found the centralized parliamentary system to be unsuitable for its multi-cultural society (three official languages – French, Dutch and German), Belgium has instituted a highly decentralized political system comprising no fewer than six different parliamentary assemblies to cater to the needs of each of the country”™s cultural or regional groups.
Multi-cultural Switzerland (three different languages spoken in separate cantons – French, German, and Italian) is governed by just such a formula. Under the Swiss “magic formula”, the seven federal cabinet posts are shared out, on a proportional basis, between the four major political parties, which, between them, cover the entire political spectrum. Furthermore, each of the country’s linguistic groups always has at least one representative in the federal cabinet. Following the Swiss federal elections of 2003, the president of the Christian Democrats, declared that any change in the “magic formula” would bring political instability to the country. Switzerland’s particular form of democracy has not only proven to be extremely effective but it is undoubtedly the world’s most successful in terms of active citizen participation and citizen satisfaction, as was revealed in a 1999 survey conducted by two researchers at the University of Zurich.
In the four decades since 1969, the communal conflict in Northern Ireland has caused an estimated 3,500 deaths and a much larger number of wounded. That extremely bloody conflict was brought to an end only with the agreement for the establishment of a system of power-shraing between the two divided religious communities. The following is an excerpt (the first two paragraphs from an Economist article two weeks ago (17 September):
“For all the frissons, peace and power-sharing are proving remarkably durable
POLITICIANS trooped back to the Assembly at Stormont this week, their mild partisan sabre-rattling little more than a ritual greeting after the summer break. In its two and a half years of existence, power-sharing has, against all expectations, provided a considerable degree of political harmony, even though gunmen and bombers have not entirely vanished from the scene.
Many predicted that this government of ancient foes, dominated by the loyalist Democratic Unionist Party and republican Sinn Fein, would produce a battle a day, yet the deal has so far proved surprisingly resilient. The funerals have practically stopped. Nearly all the guns and nearly all the paramilitary groups have gone. Most of the political action now takes place in the Assembly rather than on the streets.”
Very regrettably, only one African country heeded Arthur Lewis’ prescient advice, namely that that the Westminister system of majority rule, based on the first-past-the-post principle, “is the surest way to kill democracy in a multicultural society.” That system has arguably killed democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa, a region where all but two countries (Botswana and Swaziland) are ethnically homogeneous. Homogeneous Botswana did not have to confront the problems associated with a multicultural society but it did adapt the Westminister system in ways that avoided “the old-style top-down approach to governance”, which Reggie denounced, and also to actively involve “other corporations and councils in the country” which he advocated. To achieve that purpose, Botswana made the country’s local councils the pivot of its political system, utilising them as intermediaries between the central government and local communities. While retaining the first-past-the post electoral system, South Africa has practised a form of inclusive government which ensured cabinet posts to all opposition parties that wished to actively participate in governing the country. But South Africa’s democracy is much too young for the effectiveness and durability of those measures to be assessed.
Multi-cultural Mauritius is the only African country to have jettisoned the first-past-the post electoral system – a veritable “kiss of death” – with which the colonial power burdened it. Instead of that totally inappropriate system, Mauritius devised a socio-political system that was “made to measure” for its multi-lingual and ethnically diverse society (four languages, three religions, three ethnic groups). Among the principal features of that system, are constitutional recognition of the different ethnic communities; a “best loser” system which ensured that all ethnic groups would be represented in the parliament; a “civic network” that allowed the country’s various communities, ethnic and non-ethnic, to participate fully in the policy-making process; and the inclusion of representatives of all ethnic communities in every government formed: “In Mauritius, the “best loser” system, the incorporation of groups based in every community into the policy-making process through the civic network, the achievement of a rough degree of representativeness among elected political leaders and senior public servants, and gestures like the extension of government support to cultural centres for the Creole and Muslim communities, all have contributed to the symbolic recognition that members of the minority communities have legitimate roles to play in the public life of the country.” (Barbara & Terrance Carroll, The Consolidation of Democracy in Mauritius, Journal article, 1999).
The American academic, Lawrence Bowman, has described the stunning success of Mauritius’ democratic system: “The accomplishments of Mauritius since Independence are remarkable by any standard. In a world in which many developing countries have abandoned their commitment to democracy, faltered in their efforts to spur economic growth, or failed to keep democratic peace between diverse groups, Mauritius has an exceptional record. Elections are held regularly, and a vibrant multiparty system ensures that voters have some measure of choice.” (Democracy and Development in the Indian Ocean,1991). Furthermore, because of the natural synergy that is established between economic development and genuine democratic governance, Mauritius has become one of the most economically successsful countries in the South, among those which possess no mineral resources.
It is not possible for one country to replicate another country’s political experience because every country has a different historical experience and each possesses a unique combination of socio-cultural features. However, it is possible for a country to draw valuable lessons from another country’s experience and also to “borrow” the institutions of other countries, provided it adapted the borrowed institutions to its own socio-cultural values and to existing connditions and circumstances. Indeed, countries and civilizations have borrowed from one another throughout the ages. Virtually all Japan’s modern institutions were borrowed from the West but, unlike Caricom and virtually all other countries in the South, Japan adapted the Western institutions to its own value systems.
Both the Western civil service system and the Ombudsman were institutions the West borrowed from Imperial China – institutions established by the latter in the second century B.C and the twelfth century, respectively. Both Chinese institutions continued to function effectively, without interruption, until the fall of the Chinese Empire in the early 20th century. Parliamentary procedures practised in several northern Indian democratic republics between the sixth and fourth centuries B.C., detailed descriptions of which are recorded in ancient, extant Buddhist texts, bear a suspicious resemblance to those “developed” by Western democracies in the 18th and 19th centuries. Such procedures included the formal presentation of resolutions with up to three readings of each resolution before proceeding to the vote; the requirement of a quorum for voting; a provision for absentee voting; the referral, to a parliamentary committee, of a matter on which no agreement could be found; the interdiction placed on the re-opening of a question after a decision had been taken on it; and even the existence of Whips. Like Japan, Western countries adapted the institutions they borrowed from the East to their individual socio-cultural environment and circumstances.
Trinidad and Tobago does not meet at least two of the essential conditions that are absolutely necessary for the proper and fair functioning of a democratic system of majority rule which functions on the first-past-the-post principle. Reggie has cogently described how the absence of two of those absolutely essential features of a majority rule system has undermined, vitiated, and corrupted the democratic governance which the system was originally designed to ensure. The democratic system in T&T simply lapsed into dysfunctional mode: “In a multiracial, multireligious, multicultural society such as ours, politicians use another method to achieve the objective of power: they divide by race and religion, while swearing blind that they are doing everything they can to bring about unity.” Trinidad and Tobago can and should draw upon the experience of Belgium, Switzerland, and Mauritius in reforming its parliamentary system in ways that would address the serious problems of governance which Reggie identifted and analyzed so lucidly.
Virtually all the key problems/disquieting developments in governance, mentioned by Reggie, could be effectively addressed by the introduction of a system of power-sharing. Those disquieting developments include the drift towards centralization and personalization of political power; the lack of political accountability; ” constitutional reform” or ” local government reform” proposals which he described as a disguised attempt to undermine true democracy; the “use [of] every stratagem, every means, every device” to acquire and retain political power; charges of ” ethnic cleansing” coming from both sides of the main racial divide; and the ingenious use of code words and phrases to foster and maintain ethnic divisiveness.
In Arthur Lewis’ prophetic words, societies with social cleavages require a system which ” will give minorities adequate representation, discourage parochialism, and force moderation on the political parties.” Such a system is sorely needed in Trinidad and Tobago. Apart from the reduction or elimination of ethnic rivalries and tensions, the enforced collaboration between political parties/ethnic groups, required by such a system, would engender greater solidarity at the national level. It would also help weld together the various social groups in the country into a genuinely national community which would be willing and able to invest all their cultural energies into making the country a model that other cuntries, in Caricom and in the South, would want to follow. The mottoo on the country’s Coat of Arms, “Together we aspire, Together we achieve” might then become more than an empty slogan. A number of other measures could also be adopted with a view to adjusting the political system in ways that would actively involve local institutions and increase political participation by the community, thereby giving citizens a feeling of greater involvement in the conduct of public affairs.
Unless I am seriously mistaken, women in the country should feel much more comfortable with such a power-sharing system. By their very nature, women normally try to bridge differences. They tend to be uniters rather than dividers, and are more inclined to seek compromise agreements over divisive issues than men. Primatologists have found that those estimable female qualities are not exclusive to the human race. They are shared with our female primate cousins. A power-sharing system would place limits on the power of both the head of government and the majority party. Because both the ruling party and the opposition would need to make and obtain concessions from their political opponents/partners in government in order to arrive at some consensus, particularly on important questions, such a system would”discourage parochialism, and force moderation”, as Arthur Lewis pointed out. It would make ethnically-divisive statements and actions, on both sides of the ethnic divide, too politically expensive; it will free-up political energies which could then be directed to solving, in a bi-partisan or tri-partisan manner, serious social and economic problems facing the society, such as the alarming level of violence and those caused by drug-use and drug-trafficking.
For the latter reasons, other Caricom countries could benefit from a power-sharing form of government although, apart from Guyana and Suriname, they do not have ethnically-divided societies. Jamaica, for example, has other social fissures which might be better addressed by power-sharing system. If the country had instituted such a system at independence, it would have prevented the phenomenon of politically-backed and politically-protected criminal gangs which were no small contributory factor in the near-endemic violence that afflicts the society.
Perhaps the greatest fallout from a power-sharing system, which eliminates or considerably reduces ethnic rivalries and tensions, is that the widespread insecurity which Reggie associated with such tensions would disappear. The sense of security and self-confidence which would ensue could galvanize the entire society. A confident people would be more willing to take their future into their own hands, to demand accountability from their political leaders, and to participate actively in identifying, and proposing solutions for, problems in the society. If power-sharing governance works in T&T in the way it should, the euphoria which the whole country felt in the mid-fifties when people in their thousands thronged to the “University of Woodford Square” to hear Eric Williams share his ideas, his hopes, and his plans for the country when he took power, might return. Far from talkng down to his audience in the regular nocturnal meetings he held in Woodford Square, Williams talked about Aristotle’s Politics, for example. The great confidence, which that attitude fostered, revealed itself in newspaper columns devoted to readers’ letters where apparently ordinary citizens would discuss, and argue over, Aristotle – what he had written and what they thought he meant.
In those halycon days prior to the 1956 elections, the people of T&T actually believed that, after a century or more of being treated like infants by colonial governments, being talked down to, and excluded, they would have political leaders who would treat them like adults, take them into their confidence, and consult them on matters of importance to the country. Alas, they were mistaken. During the 1972 Democratic Presidential Convention in Miami Beach (which a number of diplomatic obervers, including myself, attended, courtesy of the U.S. State Department), I saw a delegate waving a placard with the slogan, “1972, the year the people fooled the politicians”. Perhaps, if the people of Trinidad and Tobago were to compel the political establishment – government and opposition, alike – to institute a power-sharing system, they could make a similar claim. Politicians do not easily give up any power. They would have to be compelled to establish a system of power-sharing but, as Reggie correctly stated when he urged citizens who had begun to question, and comment critically on, government statements, “They therefore do not welcome this development. That is a very good reason for me to urge you to continue to make them dislike it, until we reach the point of having them accept that it is we who put them there, and that it is they who are accountable to us.”
In his address, Reggie declared “If this is our country, we the wider population have an inescapable responsibility to take the action needed for improvement. What should we do? What are we doing?” It is perhaps generally regarded as being “safer” and more “comfortable” for us to ignore/overlook the serious problems in Trinidad and Tobago and other Caricom societies and to keep our comments for the problems of other societies, such as the ongoing situation in Honduras, Obama’s America, the Israeli-Palestine issue and others which do not affect us or our society directly. But at what cost is such “safety” bought? What price do we put on our democracy or on our basic rights, which are being gradually whittled away before our very eyes?
Edmund Burke once prophetically declared: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” To paraphrase Burke, the only thing necessary for democracy in Trinidad and Tobago to degenerate into illiberal or dictatorial rule is for good men and women to do nothing. Will the good men and women in the country [and the region] sit up, take notice, and act in time? Fortunately for us all, whether we appreciate it or not, Reggie did not choose that comfortable course. He had the courage and the backbone to raise his head above the parapet and speak out publicly, frankly and forcefully against the grave danger to the society that is presented, inter alia, by the “attempt to undermine true democracy, using a fig leaf of apparently democratic procedures which barely conceals a private anti-democratic agenda for constitutional dictatorship.” His cri de coeur is our cri de coeur. He deserves that we join hands with him – not for his sake but for ours. Will others in the country, the region, or the expatriate community speak out in support? Will they raise their heads above the parapet or stand up to be counted? Will they be willing to debate the issue publicly, even if they might not take a stand one way or another, or necessarily agree with him, thereby bringing this very important issue to the forefront of public attention, and keeping it there, where it most certainly deserves to be?
Reggie’s powerful address is an alarm call – one that all concerned, responsible T&T and Caricom citizens should heed. If we choose to ignore the following warning at the end of his address (“Complacency is not an option. We cannot go on like this. We simply cannot go on like this”), we do so at our peril.