Look at Robinson’s ‘self help’

THE EDITOR: The Government seems to be in a fluster and always fishing around for lasting solutions to the Laventille situation. It may be safe to say that they appear not to have any serious solution. But the irony is that if the government would take the time to look at some of the projects implemented by Mr Robinson when he was Prime Minister, much of their headaches would be over.

In the first place, Mr Robinson when he was Prime Minister espoused a very simple and understandable philosophy which resonated with all the population, especially the grass roots. That concept was simply “Self Help, Self-Determination and Independence.” These were daily motivational words to which the national population rallied and identified for divesting themselves of the ‘dependency syndrome.’ Very unlike the present administration’s 2020 vision which has not current basis in reality or with which only a small portion of the population can identify (the privileged minority). During the Robinson administration, there was always the feeling of optimism and a silver lining at the end of the rainbow among the poor. This was classically exemplified in both the introduction and execution of projects and programmes designed to address the plight of the most vulnerable in the society.

More importantly, there was a concerted effort to eradicate the pathological ‘square pegs in round holes,’ which made for greater efficiency and measurable delivery of services to the people. One can recall the well planned and ingrained discipline in the DEWD programme (it never attracted violence) which created agriculturists among urban residents in Laventille and environs. The many other projects introduced were always the result of careful observation and mutual respect for the existing efforts of ‘shakers and movers in the community.’ I recall the communal bath programme, the share programme, citizen conservation corps, HEPP and a deliberate recognition of and support for community initiatives created from the bowels of depressed areas such as Laventille. Soup kitchens were never a consideration, since it fostered dependency at its most humiliating level. What was preferred was grocery distribution, which had the effect of making the poor at least find the matches, pots and stove so that several meals could be prepared; rather than the present ineffective prepared meals that at best do not provide three meals a day. Violence around LID or URP was unheard of in Mr Robinson’s watch. It was impossible in Mr Robinson’s stewardship to hear of anybody going to a ‘bad boy’ to get a “ten days.” This privilege was always the domain of the recognised bona fide community leader not gang and criminal elements that portray themselves as leaders, but are in fact opportunists without a cause. Come on Mr Manning, think again, revamp your present policies on poverty eradication; otherwise you will end up with a multitude of social programmes that have no relevance in advancing the cause of poverty reduction and social stability. As my father will say “a man who is doing wrong, but believes he is right has a destructive companion.”

ALFRED GEORGE
Laventille