Two-party politics ineffective

THE EDITOR: It seems that for every plus there is a minus and this is now evidenced in the two-party political system in TT.  Whereas neither party can legitimately claim the high road, given their “tit-for-tat” history, the perennial lack of legislative accomplishments or the absence of compromise which impede progress, are now epitomised by the UNC’s hierarchy.

In the days of independent politics, when candidates resided in their Parliamentary districts and rubbed shoulders with their constituents, those elected were free to present their programmes according to their consciences and to debate, perhaps “argue vociferously” proposed legislation. Party politics introduced a more surreptitious approach whereby, individuals being rewarded for party loyalty, were presented as candidates for constituencies that were strongholds of their party.

For example, an individual domiciled in Chaguanas might be represented by the PNM to run in San Fernando. Conversely, the DLP might present a candidate who was registered as a voter in San Fernando to run in an electoral district predominated by their supporters. Like visiting doctors, they held office hours in the districts to which they were elected and, like royalty, they granted audiences to those whom their gatekeepers deemed eligible. I do not suggest that there were any racial overtones in those choices but merely strategic moves to capitalise on situations. I thought it was ridiculous then and it is equally absurd today.

Under the party system, they have caucuses to discuss pending Bills. In the natural order of things, some members would be convinced that the party’s position is just, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that dissenting voices are “made to see the light” in order to present a united front when they convene for public debate. This system emasculates some individuals and renders them impotent as representatives of the people.

The Senate Opposition Leader, Mr Wade Mark, is reported to have declared that the Opposition will not support the Anti-Kidnapping Bill because “Government is part of the crime problem in this country.” I was under the impression that the purpose of debates was to exchange points of view in order to arrive at appropriate legislation. By Mr Mark’s reasoning, if the Government is part of the problem in one Bill it is unlikely that it can present any Bill with clean hands. Mr Mark’s statement that “They seem to be clueless, hopeless and they seem to be direction less in addressing this issue” suggests that he holds himself above the system.

Why in heaven’s name does he think he was made the Leader of the Senate Opposition, if not to attempt by parliamentary process to correct the perceived ills? His failure to recognise or to admit this fact speaks volumes. The leader of the UNC’s protestation that “We are about wholesale Constitution reform and not piecemeal change” is a classic example of brinkmanship. He disregards the needs of those who support him and subjects them to the same oppression from which he promised to extricate them. He continues to tiptoe through the poisonous weeds of anarchy. I refuse to accept that his view is shared by all the ‘talking heads’ but his party seems to have succumbed to vertebral infection.

I have advocated two facets of Constitution amendment through your forum and I remain convinced that if anything will be achieved, changes should be undertaken in stages. The apex of my priorities is that there must be fixed election dates to prevent the indiscriminate call for new elections. As mentioned previously, there were three elections in two years. We are now into the early stages of a new term and the hydra-headed monster has emerged from the depths. Proof positive is the alleged remark attributed to Mr Mark “...if the PNM could not solve crime in Trinidad and Tobago, it must call fresh general elections within the shortest possible time.” It must be the chlorine in the water. If this dementia continues, sooner or later, the people will rise up and find a new group of candidates to represent them. The problems seem not to be with the instruments but with the players.

SELWYN P NIMBLETT
Brooklyn NY
USA