When fickle becomes foolish

THE EDITOR: The chairman and members of the Keith Noel 136 Committee ought to be congratulated. Rallying support and bringing together the “Death March” of October 22 2005 could not have been an easy task by any stretch of the imagination. By all indications, the march appears to have been a grand success. Mr Cadiz and Co sent a message straight into the heart of the criminal elements, that the people are no longer willing to sit and wait to die; that people are prepared to stand up against crime and criminals. Sadly though, and not surprisingly, the Death March was not without its detractors. Some members of the Government, through the unfortunate Conrad Enill, and many members of the public alike chose to split hairs over names and references rather than appreciating the meaning and purpose of the march. Of note was the presence at the march of UNC leader, Winston Dookeran and members of his team of Progressives. We know the Government and PNM thumbed their noses at the march, but where was Mr Panday and the Patriots?

Personalities aside though, the opposition to the Death March is one of a number of ways in which Trinidad and Tobago has helplessly exposed itself as a still very young and undeveloped nation. Or perhaps people would prefer that I say, “fledgling” nation? We are now over four decades into dependence and over three decades into republican status. In human years, this would mean much to celebrate. As a nation, we already have the Black Power Revolution of the 70s and the attempted coup of 1990 under our belt. Twice destabilised, we have still steadied the course to the present with a democratically elected Government in place, a so far strong economy, and a good stock of human resource. Not surprisingly, however, in nation years we cannot help but show signs of inexperience, impetuousness and even ignorance. As a nation, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that the mistakes we make today and consign to history tomorrow will be the precedent that leaders of the future base their decisions on. So, young and inexperienced though we may be, we cannot forget the responsibility we have to ourselves and those who will come after us.

A democratic state can at times be the most fickle formal unit. Here at home, the freedom of expression and choice and reasonable (though at times questionable) sense of equality we experience are among the major indicators of exactly how fickle we can be. A quick backward glance to 2001 shows Trinidad and Tobago facing perhaps its most impressive constitutional crises — the country was faced with an electoral tie; there was no clear winner in the general election. For the first time in our short history, the relatively inactive and up until then, powerless Presidency was called upon to make a decision that would dramatically chart the nation’s next political course. Then President Robinson acted amidst calls from almost every area of the society for fairness and good sense to prevail. What came after was a heaving cry of discrimination and stark political bias in a non-political office as one major section of the national community recoiled under the growing sense of attack from the Opposition cum Government.

We called for action and when it was taken, wanted the decision rescinded. And I make no attempt here to take myself out of the equation. Many writers led a battle cry of discrimination in the appointment of the Opposition over a Government they failed to convincingly remove. In the time that followed, Prime Minister Patrick Manning was seen by many to be leader of an illegitimate Government having been appointed and not duly elected by a majority. Mr Manning faced months of increasingly aggressive calls for a new election which, when it finally came and went, brought about new complaints that the PNM had stolen the election — majority or not, Prime Minister Manning was still illegitimate. The coming to power — real power — of the PNM caused an already fracturing UNC to retreat into what was to become a long period of internal squabbling that spilled over into the public. The bickering and arguing continued amidst calls for a new leadership and then finally, Mr Basdeo Panday met with Mr Winston Dookeran and an agreement was made for the former to step down as political leader of the opposition party.

What ensued then was not an abating of the bickering, as one would have reasonably expected, but an intensified internal squaring off. It became clear that Mr Panday made the leadership issue into political sport — he was willing to hand over the title of leadership, but not the seat of leadership. Now, some of the very people and supporters who were excited about what they felt was a transforming UNC are refusing to recognise that Mr Dookeran must not only be called leader, but must be allowed to lead the party in and out of Parliament. Only as time passes will we recognise the precedent our fickleness has created. Our independent state may be young, and our republicanism may be ever younger, but it should not be the reason or excuse for what seems to be a growing propensity to standing in the way of our own growth as a nation. Yes, disagreements are healthy, but only when they are sensible.

BARRY MAHARAJ
San Fernando