There is no local ‘government’

THE EDITOR: Local Government is not local and it’s not the government we need. It’s not local because, among other things, (a) the candidates are selected by national parties; (b) national parties in Government allocate funds which the “Local Government” body may or may not receive, some being taken at times and even given to other ‘local’ bodies; (c) local loyalties are predominantly with the national party rather than with the local community. It goes so far that, if you are known or considered to be a member or sympathiser of a national party, you benefit or suffer in matters of social programmes (like URP), other employment and cultural activities. Accordingly, “local government” does not bond the local community; it divides it.

Secondly, we do not need “government”. The very word indicates “rule” as of some outpost of Empire. Local government is merely an agent of central government. The local government body attempts to satisfy the needs of the people but are the people consulted or involved in the development of policies, plans and programmes for servicing their needs? They are merely told in some ad hoc fashion what the body intends to do or they see it done, and people ask for this and that and protest over one thing or another. This is a rough guide to what, at least, needs to be done: (1) Change the name to “Local Authority” (LA); (ii) Remove national parties from involvement in Local Authority; (iii) Open general meetings of the Local Authority to the public; (iv) Allow citizens the right to propose regulations and programmes to the LA and to attend the relevant committee and all general meetings; (v) make available for public scrutiny and comment the budgets and programmes of the LA; (vi) make financing equitable among the LAs of the country and ensure that allocations are not reduced unless Parliament consider it necessary because of some national crisis.

The Local Authority should be, as far as possible, a community working together to satisfy its needs despite whatever differences. The effect of the changes I propose can be enormous, including, for example, growth in the spirit of community and fall in the crime rate. To provide for this we need Constitutional Reform, the earlier the better. “I think the passage of time has exhibited the deficiencies of the Westminster system when applied to a country of our size and composition. After 40 years, the time is more than right to consider fundamental constitutional reform.” I didn’t say that, Sir Ellis Clarke did, framer of our constitution and Past President of TT.

VAN  STEWART
Diego Martin